surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
send message
follow
followers
This is why I've been sticking to the cblogs lately. Reviewers tend to get massively caught up in the hype machine. Just look at any gaming website's "news" in the last couple weeks: wall to wall Borderlands 2 coverage.
Modern videogame "journalism" is nothing but previews. Then after the game launches, nobody will ever mention it again. Until the sequel comes.
Jet Grind Radio was launched when Sega was desperate to sell a console, so they started hyping the shit out of JGR and all the magazines followed suit.
I'm not knocking JGR. It's one of my favorites. I fucking love it and I still play the Dreamcast version regularly, but it was never a 9. The controls are beyond frustrating and the camera is godawful. But the Hype Monster almost always blinds "journalists" to those types of facts.
This is why I tend to stick to community sites. I want real people's opinions. Too often a videogame review is just a press release from the publisher.
Oh well, time to hook up the Dreamcast!
Modern videogame "journalism" is nothing but previews. Then after the game launches, nobody will ever mention it again. Until the sequel comes.
Jet Grind Radio was launched when Sega was desperate to sell a console, so they started hyping the shit out of JGR and all the magazines followed suit.
I'm not knocking JGR. It's one of my favorites. I fucking love it and I still play the Dreamcast version regularly, but it was never a 9. The controls are beyond frustrating and the camera is godawful. But the Hype Monster almost always blinds "journalists" to those types of facts.
This is why I tend to stick to community sites. I want real people's opinions. Too often a videogame review is just a press release from the publisher.
Oh well, time to hook up the Dreamcast!
The greater problem is the difficulty of reviewing a port of an old game, and what expectations come with that. It is possible that a port is half-assed and as a result actually plays worse than the original game had. At the same time, some reviewers expect the developer to just fix all the old problems the game had as if it were easy (as opposed to the reality, which means to basically rebuild the game from ground up again).
But the most difficult is that they are analyzing the game with modern standards in mind. You bring up Super Mario World and Super Mario Land, but those aren't quite the same. Those are polished games from a time Nintendo had mastered side-scrolling, just about. Super Mario World still feels good to play now because it was a highly polished experience.
But compare Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario 64 and you'll notice a world of difference. All the console developers were learning 3D game design and development for the first time, and as a result a lot of the games weren't all that great. However, a lot of people didn't know better because "Holy crap 3D man check it out!"
So if you are reviewing Jet Grind Radio with modern standards, well, of course it's going to lack modern polish. But a game like Castle Crashers or Scott Pilgrim is developed to a standard that is not only more simple, but harkens back to a time when games could more easily be polished. It's easy to score those games high because there will be fewer control issues and other things getting in the way.
Of course, I'm the sort of person that tells people Goldeneye 64 was never a good game and nobody knew any better at the time.
But the most difficult is that they are analyzing the game with modern standards in mind. You bring up Super Mario World and Super Mario Land, but those aren't quite the same. Those are polished games from a time Nintendo had mastered side-scrolling, just about. Super Mario World still feels good to play now because it was a highly polished experience.
But compare Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario 64 and you'll notice a world of difference. All the console developers were learning 3D game design and development for the first time, and as a result a lot of the games weren't all that great. However, a lot of people didn't know better because "Holy crap 3D man check it out!"
So if you are reviewing Jet Grind Radio with modern standards, well, of course it's going to lack modern polish. But a game like Castle Crashers or Scott Pilgrim is developed to a standard that is not only more simple, but harkens back to a time when games could more easily be polished. It's easy to score those games high because there will be fewer control issues and other things getting in the way.
Of course, I'm the sort of person that tells people Goldeneye 64 was never a good game and nobody knew any better at the time.
"I’m also getting really tired of reviewers claiming that titles are antiquated or feel old and that is their reason for being bad. Well, why do new games like “Castle Crashers” and “Scott Pilgrim” come out and get high marks for being old-school and retro?"
That is so true. I think it's because reviewers today have just gotten lax and are more comfortable with games that help them to easily breeze through so they can push out a review faster. Which is odd since everyone was raving about Dark Souls and saying the difficulty was part of what made it so good.
Hell, IGN gave the game shining marks, but then Double Dragon Neon comes out and apparently its too antiquated and difficult to be considered good. And then in their review of FTL, one of the negatives was that "Randomness can be punishing." What? The RANDOMNESS of the game can end up being DIFFICULT? SHOCKING.
Good blog.
That is so true. I think it's because reviewers today have just gotten lax and are more comfortable with games that help them to easily breeze through so they can push out a review faster. Which is odd since everyone was raving about Dark Souls and saying the difficulty was part of what made it so good.
Hell, IGN gave the game shining marks, but then Double Dragon Neon comes out and apparently its too antiquated and difficult to be considered good. And then in their review of FTL, one of the negatives was that "Randomness can be punishing." What? The RANDOMNESS of the game can end up being DIFFICULT? SHOCKING.
Good blog.
I dunno. While I certainly agree with this blog in many cases, there are also lots of "classics" that are absolutely terrible to me nowadays. As recently as 2 or 3 years ago I loved Chrono Trigger with a passion. Or so I thought....
I played it again like 7 or 8 months ago and honestly felt like an idiot. The dialogue is so bad. This seems to be a problem when playing the majority of old school JRPGs. Interestingly I found Chrono Cross to still be a good game that has stood the test of time, although it's not as old as it's predecessor so I suppose that makes sense.
I played it again like 7 or 8 months ago and honestly felt like an idiot. The dialogue is so bad. This seems to be a problem when playing the majority of old school JRPGs. Interestingly I found Chrono Cross to still be a good game that has stood the test of time, although it's not as old as it's predecessor so I suppose that makes sense.
Whaaat, you don't think Chrono Trigger is good anymore? Man, now I need to go back and play it again just to see how much merit that comment holds... I just don't believe it.
@Zombie Orwell
It seems almost every Dreamcast game was like that. I'm still puzzled at how the IGN review of "Sonic Adventure 2 Battle" made mention that the Dreamcast sister site rated it 9.6, yet their score was a 6.9. That's just ridiculous!
@ccesarano
I actually still dig Mario 64. It holds up damn well. Then again, we are talking about Nintendo. They seem to know something more about game design than most companies.
@Genki-JAM
Yet "Demon's Souls" element of randomization is perfect for them. It's bullshit.
@EternalDeathSlayer
I haven't played through "Chrono Trigger" in years, but I'm sure I'd find problems with it now.
It seems almost every Dreamcast game was like that. I'm still puzzled at how the IGN review of "Sonic Adventure 2 Battle" made mention that the Dreamcast sister site rated it 9.6, yet their score was a 6.9. That's just ridiculous!
@ccesarano
I actually still dig Mario 64. It holds up damn well. Then again, we are talking about Nintendo. They seem to know something more about game design than most companies.
@Genki-JAM
Yet "Demon's Souls" element of randomization is perfect for them. It's bullshit.
@EternalDeathSlayer
I haven't played through "Chrono Trigger" in years, but I'm sure I'd find problems with it now.
Re-Reviewing a game from 10 years ago based on "modern" standards is simply unfair there-in lies the problem. Judging a game from ten years ago on today's technical standards is not just unfair, its invalid and borderline ignorant. It is like re-assessing a classic film like ,say, Casablanca today and claiming it is no longer "great" because the "quality" of film has improved since then, thus rendering black and white films antiquated and inferior. Or re-reviewing a new Blu-ray release of, say, Terminator 2, and claiming the film is no longer worth the 3 1/2 or 4 stars it got two decades ago because its special effects have been out-done by today's standards. Aside from being unfair, it also comes off as, frankly, disrespectful, at least from my point of view, many times. I remember IGN "reassessing" the Dreamcast a few years back and intentionally leaving Shenmue off its "top 25" list. Its reasoning? Shenmue was amazing!!!......but, well, nowadays, there are other games that have done many of the ideas it pioneered better and it essentially isn't as impressive by today's standards as it was by those of the year 2000. Of course it isn't! The game is ten years old! So because it seems a bit behind the times (because, ya know, its 10 years old), that is good reason to degrade what you once regarded as a revolutionary classic, and now disregard it as some invalid, archaic piece of history? My, if only historians worked by the same standards.....Imagine....
"Rome was actually kinda stupid, in retrospect."
"Wait, why?"
"Well, come on, by today's standards, their weapons and even some of their 'revolutionary ideas and concepts' are kinda antiquated, ya know?"
"Rome was actually kinda stupid, in retrospect."
"Wait, why?"
"Well, come on, by today's standards, their weapons and even some of their 'revolutionary ideas and concepts' are kinda antiquated, ya know?"
@The Gameslinger
Yeah, that's my point exactly. We don't devalue history because we've learned from it. I'm not saying retro games should get a free pass (some actually are bad), but claiming JSR is a classic and then years later saying it's broken is just way too much of a contradiction for me.
Yeah, that's my point exactly. We don't devalue history because we've learned from it. I'm not saying retro games should get a free pass (some actually are bad), but claiming JSR is a classic and then years later saying it's broken is just way too much of a contradiction for me.
I agree, and also disagree like a tiny little itty bit. While I totally feel you on JSR, I think there are definite examples of games that pushed the envelope in a certain way at the time they were released, and were revered because of this, but fall flat upon revisiting years later. Shenmue is one of these games for me. When it was released, Shenmue showcased the potential for a game world to be living and breathing, and feature a million cabinets and drawers that could open and close, and little kittens you could name, and at the time, it was mind-blowing because it was foreshadowing the future of games. However, revisiting Shenmue, I found a world that seemed "less-than-living," because for all its choice and player empowerment, so little of it actually made any impact in the player's experience, or served to shape the game in any measurable way. Good observation, and good read. Fapped.
A delightful read as always, King Sigy.
I've noticed that in the past five years a lot of players have become complacent in modern game design. Not only do they deny the PS1, N64, and Dreamcast the reverence they deserve but outright hate the systems and their legendary library of titles.
Many of them will say "oh I loved X or Y but going back and playing it now would make my eyes bleed" which is kinda sad. To me the late 90's generation of hardware were true pioneers. While older folk who felt more at home in the 8-bit, 16-bit era, cynically scoffed at these consoles and their baby steps into the realm of 3D game design. I was absolutely enamored by this brave new world of games.
Sure these games were rough around the edges as far as control and presentation go but the ideas they brought to the table were truly ground breaking and without them we wouldn't see most of the refinements in gaming today.
I feel sorry for those who suffer from retro goggles because playing games from yesteryear brings me right back to that moment of excitement and wounder that I felt in the late 90's. But hey, thats just me, and im pretty weird. My values are simply not placed with the masses. I love tank controls and PS1 polygons are beautiful.
I am probably the only person in 2012 that would answer the question "most graphically impressive game?" with Vagrant Story.
I've noticed that in the past five years a lot of players have become complacent in modern game design. Not only do they deny the PS1, N64, and Dreamcast the reverence they deserve but outright hate the systems and their legendary library of titles.
Many of them will say "oh I loved X or Y but going back and playing it now would make my eyes bleed" which is kinda sad. To me the late 90's generation of hardware were true pioneers. While older folk who felt more at home in the 8-bit, 16-bit era, cynically scoffed at these consoles and their baby steps into the realm of 3D game design. I was absolutely enamored by this brave new world of games.
Sure these games were rough around the edges as far as control and presentation go but the ideas they brought to the table were truly ground breaking and without them we wouldn't see most of the refinements in gaming today.
I feel sorry for those who suffer from retro goggles because playing games from yesteryear brings me right back to that moment of excitement and wounder that I felt in the late 90's. But hey, thats just me, and im pretty weird. My values are simply not placed with the masses. I love tank controls and PS1 polygons are beautiful.
I am probably the only person in 2012 that would answer the question "most graphically impressive game?" with Vagrant Story.
I still love the bejeezus out of Shenmue. I've been replaying it recently and I actually enjoy it much more than most contemporary games.
@Zombie Orwell I agree about Shenmue. It still represents a very unique and cerebral experience to me even to this day. Yes, it pioneered many ideas that have since been built and improved upon by other games, but it also is still something very much its own, and at least to me, holds up very strong today; it is still a gorgeous looking game, and there still isn't anything quite like it.
I still love the dreamcast. Most people who review these games NOW are kids that didn't play them back then. At the same time, sometimes they review the port and not the original, which would validate some reviews.
But, really, reviews are opinions, if a person has a shitty opinion or cannot express why s/he thinks something the way s/he does it's their fault for being stupid.
Hold your own opinion, don't give much credit to reviews.
But, really, reviews are opinions, if a person has a shitty opinion or cannot express why s/he thinks something the way s/he does it's their fault for being stupid.
Hold your own opinion, don't give much credit to reviews.
The scoring seems a bit strange , but I think retro pixel graphics has aged way better than low poly low res graphics if thats what's dragging it down. Maybe people back when it came out just bought it for the wow, this looks cool factor? Either way I haven't played the game so I can't say, I just though your retro graphics comparison didn't quite work :)
An interesting blog. I hadn't really thought about the scoring discrepancies for re-released video games ... though I guess some games actually do make the leap to current gen hardware better than others (either because of the nature of the original game or by just getting a better update).
Unlike movies or music though, I think that games are much more intertwined with the technology of the time. Zork was an incredible game, but part of the incredible nature of the game was that typing something into the computer evoked a response. I don't know that younger people can understand just how awe-inspiring that was. The game holds up... but it would be better nowadays if it was on updated tech... using voice as input on a mobile device and therefore being accessible to the blind who often can't play visually based games. The tech that makes our games is very much a part of our games rather than simply a container for the media like movies or music.
Unlike movies or music though, I think that games are much more intertwined with the technology of the time. Zork was an incredible game, but part of the incredible nature of the game was that typing something into the computer evoked a response. I don't know that younger people can understand just how awe-inspiring that was. The game holds up... but it would be better nowadays if it was on updated tech... using voice as input on a mobile device and therefore being accessible to the blind who often can't play visually based games. The tech that makes our games is very much a part of our games rather than simply a container for the media like movies or music.
I agree with your point about the review score changing a decade later. It's retarded.
However, the purist in me about another matter feels the need to point something out.
"My only real understanding of this situation comes with my old passion for Slipknot. I used to love their direct and dirty style of metal"
Slipknot is Nu-Metal, and while the word "Metal" is in the sub-genre's name, Nu-Metal isn't classified under the Metal genre, but the Hard Rock/Shock Rock genres.
"Nothing is wrong with the band and their music will always be a shining example of power/hard metal done right."
Power Metal? Slipknot is Power Metal? I am fighting the strongest of urges to tell you to GTFO of here, but that's just the purist in me, you don't deserve that. Power Metal is Dio, Stormwarrior, Blind Guardian, Iced Earth, just to name a few. Power Metal is actually the furthest away from Slipknot you could get in the Metal genre.
Anyway, had to get that out of my system, let's hope you not take offense to what I'm saying. Not meaning to be condescending, just informative.
However, the purist in me about another matter feels the need to point something out.
"My only real understanding of this situation comes with my old passion for Slipknot. I used to love their direct and dirty style of metal"
Slipknot is Nu-Metal, and while the word "Metal" is in the sub-genre's name, Nu-Metal isn't classified under the Metal genre, but the Hard Rock/Shock Rock genres.
"Nothing is wrong with the band and their music will always be a shining example of power/hard metal done right."
Power Metal? Slipknot is Power Metal? I am fighting the strongest of urges to tell you to GTFO of here, but that's just the purist in me, you don't deserve that. Power Metal is Dio, Stormwarrior, Blind Guardian, Iced Earth, just to name a few. Power Metal is actually the furthest away from Slipknot you could get in the Metal genre.
Anyway, had to get that out of my system, let's hope you not take offense to what I'm saying. Not meaning to be condescending, just informative.
