Topic: Something I noticed on Gamespot

[TheOtherBelmont]

When I was going through the reviews for some of the Wii titles, I noticed they did small reviews for some of the games on the Virtual Console...why the hell are they reviewing older games?  Seems kind of pointless, especially when they bring up bad points to some of the games.  Like for Sonic the Hedgehog (the original Sega one) they mentioned "Later levels can get frustratingly tough, requiring meticulous memorization; priced a little steep for a fairly short game."  Personally I don't remember the game being too frustrating, maybe a couple of the boss battles but that was about it.  They also marked it down for costing $8?  Since when was cost a part of the review process?  I'm not the biggest Sonic fan in the world, but it seems kind of moot to even review this game in the first place.  Also this comment about Altered Beast was pretty dumb  "In its day, the Genesis version of Altered Beast was a middling translation of a great arcade side-scroller. Now it scrapes by on decent action and some nostalgic value."  Nostalgic value? No fucking shit, its an older title you fucking tards.  They also marked down F-Zero (the SNES version) for not having online multiplayer, seriously what the fuck?  I don't get why they are reviewing older titles by today's standards.

The only thing they should even be marking points for is if the emulation isn't as good as the original, like omitted content, or new problems like controlling the games with the Wiimote(if it affects the gameplay a lot).

[scottws]

The last two levels of the original Sonic are pretty hard.  But not super-tough.

I get what you're saying though.  Online didn't even exist on the SNES.

[Quemaqua]

It does seem a bit odd, but it doesn't seem that bad.  I mean, price is regularly a part of the reviewing process.  Not always, but it is when its really warranted.  And I can see what they mean about Altered Beast.  While the Sonic games are still awesome, Altered Beast totally blows (and I used to live for it in the arcade).  Some games hold up well, others don't so much.  And I don't know about the F-Zero comment.  I guess if there are other games getting updates in order to play online (and let's face it -- you can do that with emulators these days) then it might deserve the knock.  But probably only if other games were doing it.

[idolminds]

What do you mean I cant play FZero online? My life is now meaningless!

[Xessive]

HAha I totally agree with Tet LOL That's pretty retarded! Wait, maybe their joking?

[sirean_syan]

Kasavin answers this very question in his top post.

I dunno. Makes sense to me. The comment about F-Zero is because there have been a couple attempts lately to put online play into older games like with MK II and Street Fighter. Given that F-Zero worked out so well, he's just saying it could have been that much cooler if he could play online.

[Xessive]

I don't know about how it works with the Wii, but if you're using ZSNES on PC you can play 2 player SNES game online. The network option it has is pretty decent.

[MysterD]

Issues w/ "price" and "the amount of game content (or the lack of game content)" would probably go right into GameSpot's "Value" category.

I think it should be taken into account -- regardless of the game's age.

Games that add new options that weren't in the original, like say adding a Multiplayer Online component that wasn't in the old NES version, deserve to be rewarded accordingly for doing so.

[Quemaqua]

Yeah... I don't know.  It seems like people are getting way too divided on this stuph.  The comments didn't really seem that bad to me.

[Cools]

Pointless. I guess they are running out of things to review.

I mean, the only reason you'd buy those games is for the nostalgic effect, so it won't matter if it gets a 5 or a 10 now.

[Quemaqua]

I think Kas fairly well explained why they decided to review them, actually, and there are more games now than there have probably ever been, so I highly doubt they're "running out" of anything.

[TheOtherBelmont]

I just don't see the need for a review.  An article about how well the game runs and what was added or deleted from the original is about all the games needed, not some in depth review.  And if they are going to seriously review it, reviewing by today's standards just seems silly.  I can understand wanting to have something cool added and making a comment about it, like online multiplayer with F-Zero(that actually would be cool if they implemented that), but you shouldn't take away points for an older game not having that new cool thing.  If I owned a Wii and was planning on buying something through the Virtual Console, the only thing I would want to know is how well it runs, how it controls, and if they added or took away something for the original, that's it.

[Cobra951]

The PSP is getting its share of old-game collections too.  A couple of Sonic games and Altered Beast are part of the Sega collection.  The emulation is just about perfect, and what they call mid-game saves are emulator save states.  EA has a collection of 16-bit titles (all Genesis, I think), and Activision released a big bunch of their Atari VCS titles (hardly interesting at this point, really).  That's where they got their start.

So I guess this must be a current fad, bringing back games we've played to death on old consoles and PC emulators.  Unless they're very cheap, I don't see the attraction, even though I liked many of those games in their day.  (New players are going to think they're too dated, and old players have had their fill, or can still play them some other way.)

[scottws]

Yeah, I have emulators on my PC, 600+ games for them, and even a gamepad to play them with.  All I ever play though is UN Squadron, Contra, and Super Tecmo Bowl.  Most of the old games either seem old hat or just aren't as good as you remember them being.