21 Comments
Posted by Godwind

I decided to explain this in the form of a video.  Curious not understanding why the virtual console was never added when classics are rated on other platforms.
 
 

Posted by MikkaQ

Because they're old, emulated games? They're fun to play, but I don't know if you can even apply modern review standards to a lot of them. Some of them are basically unplayable unless you enjoyed them back in the day. Some hold up, but not a lot. Plus they're... y'know... old? 

Edited by Diamond

Game reviewers have a hard enough time rating older games based on modern standards.  Do you rate them as being a game from 1986?  Or do you give the graphics a 1.0 and dock the gameplay because there's no online MP...  Metacritic doesn't have access to the old reviews to put online either.
 
Many games that get ported to other platforms are being remade, getting lots of new features.  Even the early arcade ports on XBLA got online leaderboards and achievements.  Now those sort of games will be on the new MS Game room and probably won't be rated either.  VC doesn't add new features, and I think that's a factor to consider.  Maybe a game like Space Harrier should be re-reviewed if it was updated, like you say.

Posted by Mushir

You look kinda like the Numa Numa guy but with hair.

Posted by nanikore

I always pictured you as a pair of milky boobs. I'm disappointed. 

Posted by oldschool
@nanikore said:
" I always pictured you as a pair of milky boobs. I'm disappointed.  "
The fantasy has been shattered.  It will never be the same again :-( 
 
They would need a completely separate rating section and games would have to be rated for playability NOW.  I don't see it happening, but I would like all that there is in one spot as most old games are completely unknown to me.
Posted by Godwind

@XII_Sniper said:

"They're fun to play, but I don't know if you can even apply modern review standards to a lot of them. "

  They already review virtual console games and content. 
 
 @XII_Sniper said:

" Some of them are basically unplayable unless you enjoyed them back in the day. Some hold up, but not a lot. "

 And wouldn't that be true about most games today?  Sure we may have our Gears of Wars, but no one is expecting Quake to on par with modern games.  Although if it is, kudos to id.
 

@Diamond said:

" Game reviewers have a hard enough time rating older games based on modern standards.   "

If a game can't live up to it's full potential, it obviously isn't a very good game.  It isn't that hard to give something an F.
 
  @Diamond said:

" Do you rate them as being a game from 1986? "

Generally speaking, most review publications have their own standard of reviewing video games.  Why is it that IGN can give a game such as the Conduit a 8.6 while Giantbomb gives it two stars?  Or Why did IGN give Wii Sports Resort a 7.7 while Giantbomb gave it 5 stars?  Review publications should review games according to how they feel is best suitable.
 
   @Diamond said:

"Or do you give the graphics a 1.0 and dock the gameplay because there's no online MP. "

  There are plenty of games that don't have online MP and still perform well.  As for graphics, if the game looks like shit, then it shouldn't score very well.  Some games still look pretty, yet are old.
 
   @Diamond said:

"Metacritic doesn't have access to the old reviews to put online either. "

  That's okay.  We are talking about modern reviews.
 
   @Diamond said:

"Many games that get ported to other platforms are being remade, getting lots of new features.  Even the early arcade ports on XBLA got online leaderboards and achievements. "

  The same is true for some virtual console games.  Content is sometimes cut.  Some Virtual console games gain new features in the process.
  

@Diamond

said:

" VC doesn't add new features, and I think that's a factor to consider.  Maybe a game like Space Harrier should be re-reviewed if it was updated, like you say. "

  What about games that were never released in the west in the first place?  They are effectively the only way to play it locally in the west.
Posted by Godwind
@oldschool said:
" @nanikore said:
" I always pictured you as a pair of milky boobs. I'm disappointed.  "
The fantasy has been shattered.  It will never be the same again :-(  They would need a completely separate rating section and games would have to be rated for playability NOW.  I don't see it happening, but I would like all that there is in one spot as most old games are completely unknown to me. "
I'm glad there is a sympathizer in the crowd.
Posted by EpicSteve

Metacritic is fucked up as it is.

Posted by HandsomeDead

Weird how you look exactly like I imagined.

Posted by TinaWood

Haha, I miss took you for that Jeff guy for a moment.

Posted by oldschool
@Godwind said:
" @oldschool said:
" @nanikore said:
" I always pictured you as a pair of milky boobs. I'm disappointed.  "
The fantasy has been shattered.  It will never be the same again :-(  They would need a completely separate rating section and games would have to be rated for playability NOW.  I don't see it happening, but I would like all that there is in one spot as most old games are completely unknown to me. "
I'm glad there is a sympathizer in the crowd. "
How could it be a bad thing?  If people didn't care for a new review, reviewed in the context of new and value for money, then they don't have to read it.  Some are just a bit short-sighted.  SOme magazines give a review of sorts, mainly buy or not buy, otherwise you are just guessing.
Posted by Godwind

Actually, I'm glad there are people who review virtual console games.  Although I would like to have a tunnel through one source to find most of them.

Posted by Willy105

People use Metacritic?
 
Gamerankings for games and Rotten Tomatoes for movies. No Metacritic, because it sucks.

Posted by demontium
@Godwind said:
" I decided to explain this in the form of a video.  Curious not understanding why the virtual console was never added when classics are rated on other platforms.
 
 
"
I love the stock music. 
 
@Willy105 said:
" People use Metacritic?  Gamerankings for games and Rotten Tomatoes for movies. No Metacritic, because it sucks. "
why not not looking at the average? 
 
Just look at good review sites, and how could one be crap and the other not? GR and Metacritic report the same scores.
Posted by insouciant

@Godwind:
Wow!  I am impressed!  Not only were you unafraid to post a YouTube video of yourself, but you gracefully ignored certain comments and gave hard hitting replies to everyone who responded!  You really put yourself out there.
 
And to top it off, Hamz hasn't even locked this topic yet for "U-Toob Spam" violations.  I am definitely following you!

Posted by Godwind
@demontium: 
Metacritic does weighted averages, I believe Gamerankings doesn't.  It does modify the score by a few points, nothing else really. I like to use it as a means to find reviews, not some much as find the as find an average.
 
Also, that isn't stock music.  That is Scott Joplin's "The Entertainer".
 
@insouciant said:
"

@Godwind:
Wow!  I am impressed!  Not only were you unafraid to post a YouTube video of yourself, but you gracefully ignored certain comments and gave hard hitting replies to everyone who responded!  You really put yourself out there.
 
And to top it off, Hamz hasn't even locked this topic yet for "U-Toob Spam" violations.  I am definitely following you!

"
It isn't that impressive.  When I start walking on water, please give credit where it is due.
Posted by fastkilr

I think more sites would review re-released games if they could, but the game companies always seem hesitant to hand out review codes. Probably because the games can be sold on nostalgic value alone. Reviews for Ocarina of Time for the Virtual Console, for example, aren't going to make the game more appealing to customers. OOT has already scored well across the board, so there's really no incentive to provide review codes, in my opinion. It could also be that they're just not provided with the opportunity to hand out as many review codes for remakes. I'm sure things are different if you're writing for a large site with any kind of reputation. I'd like to see more Virtual Console reviews, as well.

Posted by ryanwho

The better question is why modern games are included in something as asinine as Metacritic.

Posted by oldschool
@ryanwho said:
" The better question is why modern games are included in something as asinine as Metacritic. "
I don't see what is asinine about Metacritic.  It is a very useful tool as it provides a single place to check out individual reviews.  If it is used  badly by anyone, that isn't the fault of Metacritic.
Posted by Godwind
@fastkilr said:
" I think more sites would review re-released games if they could, but the game companies always seem hesitant to hand out review codes. Probably because the games can be sold on nostalgic value alone. Reviews for Ocarina of Time for the Virtual Console, for example, aren't going to make the game more appealing to customers. OOT has already scored well across the board, so there's really no incentive to provide review codes, in my opinion. It could also be that they're just not provided with the opportunity to hand out as many review codes for remakes. I'm sure things are different if you're writing for a large site with any kind of reputation. I'd like to see more Virtual Console reviews, as well. "

This may actually surprise you but there was a time when reviews didn't exist.  When the NES and SMS came out, people depended on word of mouth alone.  When the SNES came out, there were a few publications coming out to review games, but for the most part, people depended on word of mouth.  When the internet became popular, that was when reviews became expanded in numbers, but they were still fairly limited.