Poor Game Reviews

[IntvGene]

I was looking at some old video game reviews today, and I came across some really bad ones (not on this site!), especially for the Atari, Intellivision, Coleco, etc. The ones that bothered me the most had to be the ones where people compare the graphics to the newest system at the time that the reviewer wrote the article:

"Compared to the N64, these graphics are laughable.."

I also hate the ones where they date it and say:

"Back in the eighties when these graphics were all that they could do..."

"Over twenty years ago this game was probably considered to be pretty good but after playing Rocky on the XBOX, I can see that Activision's Boxing is a joke. I give it a 1.0."

..and things like that. It drives me insane! It really reminds me of the article from EGM that someone posted on HERE (http://www.digitpress.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19507&highlight=game+reviews) with the kids these days not being able to play a classic game for two minutes. Anyway, this was more of a rant than anything. Woo! Got that off my chest.

[Half Japanese]

For one thing, I imagine you can chalk it up to the younger generations getting progressively more stupid. I can't imagine what their teachers have to deal with on a daily basis...."this George Orwell stuff is alright, but it's got NOTHING on this killer rerun of the X-Files that was on the other night!" Alright Darwinism, kick in and get rid of some of the dummies.

[Ed Oscuro]

Oh well. These sort of kids are out there, and it's unfortunate that they've got the power to create a website, but there you have it.

They've got legitimate complaints against the old games, but those complaints aren't fairly tempered by a knowledge of, well, age and some other things. I think one issue that they feel subconsciously but never can articulate is the difference (as I see it) between a "American" and a "Japanese" game: we've gotten used to the story-driven games such as Nintendo and Square have put out for years, and if you can't stand games that just drop you into the action you'll score that against them. This stereotype is actually contrary to the reality of things (who invented Pac-Man, after all?) as it's really a result of the limited technology of the day being used as well as possible. Same thing for the early PC shooters...except that one's been having difficulty clearing up just like the Atari debacle (not to say there's some underlying similarity, though).

What it comes down to is that we need more impartial yet interested reviewers -- people who won't add multiple points to a base ten scoring system simply for nostalgia, but are open minded enough to see what's enjoyable with this older stuff. I think that this is always going to be just an approximation, though -- nobody today is going to feel the rush of excitement and amazement one must've experienced back in 1982 from the graphics of an Atari game. That said, though, I think we can do better than some of the reviews I've seen over time. I often see stuff that doesn't quite heap praise on garbage but still tends to overrate games: take the reviews on Neo Geo 4 Life.com; whoever wrote some of those KoF reviews was engaging in a rather blatant exercise in selective attention. They wrote up all the good stuff, sure, but they certainly ignored a lot of bad things! No mention of the horrible, horrible spinning letter/voice clip that plays for an interminable length of time at the beginning of the intro to the very first game in that series (KoF '94).

[Kroogah]

A survey of quite a few of my fellow video game dorks has cemented the "story-driven gamer" stereotype. The only story-driven game I've enjoyed in recent years is Snatcher, and most of my friends joke that my taste in video games is regressing. I read books or watch movies if I want stories.

[badinsults]

I hope none of the reviews I have written are like that... some I haven't re-read in over 2 years.

[Ed Oscuro]

A survey of quite a few of my fellow video game dorks has cemented the "story-driven gamer" stereotype. The only story-driven game I've enjoyed in recent years is Snatcher, and most of my friends joke that my taste in video games is regressing. I read books or watch movies if I want stories.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, that's the thing! I'm a big fan of these terribly shallow old games, but my thing is I like the person-based ones like Contra, CV and Shinobi. I can do stories, but I've always liked being able to spend a number of minutes playing an action game.

[Flack]

I would think in some retro reviews it would be almost impossible not to compare them to today's games. The example I'm thinking of is sports games. I'm sure I spent a LOT of time back in the day playing Atari Basketball, but kids whose first experience of basketball gaming was NBA Jam or NBA Live are not going to be impressed by a basketball game that features a square basketball ...

Bottom line, on some games you just had to be there, and I'm damn glad I was.

Flack

[YoshiM]

I think a classic review would have to be written objectively in regards to it's time period first and then compared to the games of today. Okay, so Activision Boxing is fairly simple compared to Rocky but how is Boxing itself? These reviewers, possibly because they really never grew up with these old games, don't seem to respect the progression technology has made. Back then that was pretty high tech stuff on consoles. I think these kids probably put these reviews up for the sake of having content and look "hip" by thinking they know "retro".

[bargora]

I was looking at some old video game reviews today, and I came across some really bad ones (not on this site!), especially for the Atari, Intellivision, Coleco, etc.
Where did you find these reviews?

[Ed Oscuro]

I think these kids probably put these reviews up for the sake of having content and look "hip" by thinking they know "retro".

Your use of the word "hip" in quotes has me smiling inwardly.

Yes, that's more of what I said before...but while it's all well and good to say that a reviewer should be objective, what does that mean? Does that mean they should focus on how well refined the game mechanic of the game is? Or its graphics? I think the fact that some 20 years have passed since this stuff was current makes it hard for even contemporary fans to review it: on the one hand, your audience looks at considers glowing reviews ridiculous as reviews of Quake 2 must seem now (the reason being that this particular piece of software got glowing reviews despite being buggy, not terribly exciting, and shipping without multiplayer maps despite the heritage), but on the other, there's really nobody out there who reviews retro games according to a set of criteria and some entailed assumptions, whatever the benefits might be. This might sound lame, yet I always have a hard time believing whatever fuzzy, warmly nostalgic review I've read of a game. I prefer to find old print reviews (that the World of Spectrum is online is a godsend) or just actually play the thing in emulation to get a feel for it.

[IntvGene]

Where did you find these reviews?

You know, I was going to put the link to them, but just in case someone here wrote those reviews, I decided against it. I don't want to embarrass anyone. I just want to talk about the topic more than anything. If you really can't find any reviews like this, then let me know. And, don't worrry, Evan. I don't think I read any of yours. The ones I read were pretty asinine.

It's funny because the web is like no other media in some ways. If you don't update it, it will get dated quickly. Making a comment how the N64 graphics are the best out there doesn't do much to the review when you read it ten years later.

But, the questions that remain for me are, can WE be objective about them any better than anyone else? And, do you really have to have gone through that age to judge them. As much as I wouold like to believe it, I think that is a bit conceited... And, I don't mind someone giving their personal bias in a review, just as long as they acknlowledge it.

[Raccoon Lad]

Kinda remnds me if IGN's review of Billy hatcher, comparing the graphics to "a glorified Dreamcast title".
The gamecube IS basically a glorified deramcast in many respects, and what's so bad about teh dreamcast??

[Half Japanese]

... and what's so bad about teh dreamcast??

Not a damn thing my man, not a damn thing.

[YoshiM]

Your use of the word "hip" in quotes has me smiling inwardly.

Yes, that's more of what I said before...but while it's all well and good to say that a reviewer should be objective, what does that mean? Does that mean they should focus on how well refined the game mechanic of the game is? Or its graphics? I think the fact that some 20 years have passed since this stuff was current makes it hard for even contemporary fans to review it: on the one hand, your audience looks at considers glowing reviews ridiculous as reviews of Quake 2 must seem now (the reason being that this particular piece of software got glowing reviews despite being buggy, not terribly exciting, and shipping without multiplayer maps despite the heritage), but on the other, there's really nobody out there who reviews retro games according to a set of criteria and some entailed assumptions, whatever the benefits might be. This might sound lame, yet I always have a hard time believing whatever fuzzy, warmly nostalgic review I've read of a game. I prefer to find old print reviews (that the World of Spectrum is online is a godsend) or just actually play the thing in emulation to get a feel for it.

True you could read old print reviews, but the problem is that many of those reviews are not necessarily available for everyone. So it is a positive thing that there are reviews out there for those who are interested in games of the past.

What I mean by objective is as an initial review: put yourself back in that time. Using Quake 2, what other games were out at the same time? It may seem like more work than just an off-the-cuff review but to do any retro game justice you have to look at its original frame of time. Then compare it to today's games. Do the graphics hold up well? Is the game still fun or has modern advances (in graphics, sound, or gameplay) show how much of a dinosaur said game is? Was the game a trailblazer and what trail did it blaze and how often are the concepts the game came up with used in modern games? As you go, sprinkle in any personal bias in there with a back up of why you think the way you do. People take your words less seriously when you say something like "Quake 2 sucks" and just leave it at that (as pretty much the reviewers of boxing pretty much did).

Not too hard now is it? :D

[Bratwurst]

Kinda remnds me if IGN's review of Billy hatcher, comparing the graphics to "a glorified Dreamcast title".
The gamecube IS basically a glorified deramcast in many respects, and what's so bad about teh dreamcast??

IGN is a joke. One of their reviewers gave a bad score for an online game that the publisher only logged a couple hours from their IP. Anyone catch the McGriddle skin?

[Ed Oscuro]

True you could read old print reviews, but the problem is that many of those reviews are not necessarily available for everyone. So it is a positive thing that there are reviews out there for those who are interested in games of the past.

By their very nature, the WoS reviews posted on the internet are available for all, and so are scans of a lot of the US stuff. Not quite as easy to find, sure, but they're out there. You could probably find PDF scans using something like an academic research tool like Infotrac or some such.


What I mean by objective is as an initial review: put yourself back in that time.

Ignoring the stuff about the way in which you type your review (we all agree that style counts, I'd bet), I'll say that this looks easy but in reality is impossible. You CAN'T recreate that christmas-morning enthusiasm for a new game (even if you got it in July, new games certainly have something special about them) no matter how hard you try. Now I won't argue that this is a bad thing, because as I read through GameSpy's "Top 25 Overrated Games" list I realized that a lot of their choices were made because they felt bad about how THEY rated a game...the comment about how they went out and bought 12 copies or so of Black and White at $50 each, coupled with their further comments about their own reaction, seems to have had a significant role in shaping their choice of it as the #1 overrated game. I will certainly agree that you're right -- looking at what was around at the time will help shape one's decision -- but when I look at, say, Rise of the Triad, and I think "hmm it has all these advanced features," I have to ask how good the actual game was? I finally obtained and tried out the retail version a year ago and so. While it did indeed have the most players in any online deathmatch ever up to that point (outside of Corridor 7, which sucked and doesn't count,) realtime voice chat, primitive room-over-room and a slew of other neat features (the weapon system was arguably a forerunner of that found today in Halo, though less minimalistic and more confused) it still has failings in level design and elsewhere that this sort of "feature comparison" approach can lead to. While a very good cornerstone of retrogaming reviewer tactics, "contemporary feature comparison" minded reviewers often forget that whatever obscure game they're reviewing really just couldn't compete with their famous counterparts.

[Captain Wrong]

A survey of quite a few of my fellow video game dorks has cemented the "story-driven gamer" stereotype. The only story-driven game I've enjoyed in recent years is Snatcher, and most of my friends joke that my taste in video games is regressing. I read books or watch movies if I want stories.

Regressing? Naah. I tend to think of someone as quite advanced who can still appreciate the joys of a "quarter muncher". Anyone can sit down with a walkthrough, watch 30 minutes of cutscenes, etc., etc., but there aren't many who can truly appreciate the simple zen of playing a game for the sake of playing, not to see the story unfold.

Story based gaming was the worst thing to happen to the VG industry and nothing anyone says is going to convince me otherwise. :P

[Ed Oscuro]

I would have to disagree...it's just a matter of asking how much you're going to combine the two. If the technology had been available to the Atari VCS crowd, we'd have seen intro sequences with much more frequency (not to mention length). No, the problem is when you can't find a good action game to save your soul, and I feel that the difficulty there is as much to blame on these linear "figure out what do to next" games like Splinter Cell as anything (yeah, good game...don't care for repeating levels much, though).

[Flack]

I recently downloaded some of those old Atari commercials ... Activision ones, specifically. I was watching the one for Activision's Grand Prix where they say, "it's so real, you'll be asking yourself, 'it's just a game ... or IS it'?" and then they show the guy playing the game and he's wearing a racing helmet. At some point during the sequence they also show a screen shot of the game which had me laughing ... the cars were colored rectangles with small black rectangles for tires, and a big gray rectangle for the street (complete with little white rectangles for the dividing line). My guess is, even most two year olds wouldn't confuse this game with actual video from a race track.

So if you're going to review this game, you pretty much have three options. One is, talk about the game like it's 1982, and discuss how revolutionary the graphics are. Two, talk about the game like it's 2003 and laugh about the graphics (What? You can't even get out and shoot people? This game sucks!). Three, you can talk about how good/bad the game was then, and how it's stood the test of time.

So I think the new rule is, everyone who writes reviews should do number three. :)

Flack

[ubikuberalles]

It's a conspiracy I tell you! A conspiracy! A plot by the executives of Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft! They saw how popular retro gaming has become lately and they believe it's taking money away from their own systems. They watched with increasing alarm the rising popularity of CGE and closely monitored the sales of retro systems like the Atari 10-in-1 system and the Intellivision 25-in-1 system. They had to do something and they started by spreading these vicious lies and propaganda! Soon they'll be revising history and say Atari was a tool of the Al-Queda terrorists just to convince young gamers to stay away from the oldies! Stop the madness!!!
LOL

Actually the comments at the start of this thread only talk about the graphics - no mention of game play. This is just another sign that many new gamers are more interested in the look of a game then in the actual play of the game. If game play was mentioned then I would say the classics would stack up quite well against the latest games. :)

[Dire 51]

Worst review EVER: http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/genesis/review/R18489.html

[Lady Jaye]

You guys want someone with great reviews of retro games (aside from the DP crew) that are neither rose-tainted, nor so cynical it hurts? What about the Video Game Critic (www.videogamecritic.net)? He has reviews on his site of games from all consoles, from the Odyssee to the Xbox. He compares the games to other games released for that console (for instance, Solaris for the 2600 is called a very ambitious title maimed by poor marketing on Atari's part. He gave B to the game).

Regarding old reviews: for complete scans of 11 old VideoGame and Computer Entertainment issues from 1989 to 1993, go to http://www.afn.org/~afn04314/mag_vg&ce.htm Obviously, there are reviews in there. Hey, I even found a review of Digital Press the zine in the Fandango section of the mag, penned by none other than Arnie Katz! http://dinosaur-act.ath.cx:8000/mags/vgce/vgce_92-07/jpg_vgce_92-07_086.htm

[Raccoon Lad]

Some of THE worst reviews I've ever read anywhere were from someone who called himself lobsterman? (veteran forum users may remember him). They were like reading Cliff Notes versions of scripts for bad B-movies LOL . I'm not sure what was funnier- his writing, or him defending it...

You must mean Robsterman

[IntvGene]

That Gamefaqs review is pretty damn funny. But, what can you say about someone who gives Streets of Rage a 2/10. LOL

VideoGameCritic.net is pretty good, most of the time. I think that the reviews get a little bit harsh. Death Star Battle - D? Spikes Peak - D? Superman - D+? But, generally they're good.

[ArnoldRimmer83]

[quote="IntvGene"]That Gamefaqs review is pretty damn funny. But, what can you say about someone who gives Streets of Rage a 2/10. LOL quote]

I can say the guy is a retard.