Gamespot reviewer slams Splatterhouse for the TG-16 (4.7 out of 10)

[Anthony1]

An interesting thing is happening right now in the world of retro gaming. Video Game websites that normally only cover modern, current day video games, are feeling the need to review every game that comes to the Virtual Console for Nintendo's Wii. This means games like Splatterhouse (TG-16), Gain Ground (Genesis), Legend of Kage (NES) and Bio-Hazard Battle (Genesis) are being reviewed by gaming editors that normally cover the latest Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 and Nintendo Wii games. Certainly, it's very possible that the review duties for these old school games are being handed to the resident retrogamer amongst the staff for these gaming websites, but you never really know. They could simply be pulling a guy who doesn't know Alex Kidd from Adam, and telling him to sit down and play Splatterhouse and give a review of the game.

I really don't know much of anything about Frank Provo, the guy that ended up reviewing Splatterhouse for GameSpot, other than to know that this guy is flat out wrong. 4.7. Can you freaking believe that? 4.7? You got to be freaking kidding me. Splatterhouse is one of the absolute classic TurboGrafx-16 games. Sure, it might not be the greatest game in the world, but 4.7 is the kinda score that you give to Pimp My Ride or some crap like that. Not a freaking TG-16 classic. Here is a quote from his review:

"Splatterhouse is the kind of simplistic, repetitive beat-'em-up that you'll play for about 15 minutes before moving on to something else. "


Um, yeah.... Right. Obviously, this dude never owned a TG-16 back in the day. Those of us that did, have very fond memories of Splatterhouse, and I don't think any of us think it's a game to play for 15 minutes and then to move on to something else. Again, the game isn't the greatest game in the world by any stretch of the imagination, but seeing it get a score like 4.7 brings a tear to my eye. It appears that the masses agree with me, because 20 people have chimed in to give it an average score of 7.1. Now, had I seen that Splaterhouse got a 7.0 or a 6.9, or even a 6.0, I probably wouldn't even have noticed it. But seeing a 4.7 next to the name Splatterhouse definitely shocked me to a degree.

Here is the full review:

http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/splatterhousetg16/review.html?sid=6167749

[whoisKeel]

I think I only played Splatterhouse for about 15 or 20 mins :) I'm not a huge beat 'em up fan, so it takes a really stellar one to convince me.

You have to remember that the people reading these reviews are people who don't know what these games are, or at least that is the intended audience, so they know whether or not to make a purchase. Just because a game was great when it came out doesn't mean newcomers are going to appreciate it. Which is probably why I'm not a huge fan of this game, I played it for the first time recently (within last few years).

[swlovinist]

How do you attach a memory to a score? You dont, and you typically have to review a game on how it competes with other things that are for the same price. That is being objective, of course. We are all passionate about what we like and what we dont like. We typically choose retro games due to childhood memories connected to them. While we can say that a specific game is dam good, someone not of our generation can look at the same game and give it a "meh". Splatterhouse to me will always be great due to it being connected to the TG-16 and my childhood. Anyone who did not have that connection to it I would expect to have a not so passionate review of the game, espically now with all the choices one has to choose from. I am ok with IGN giving the game a low score, I dont expect them to have the connection to the game or system like I have. Let us face the facts that we are all opinionated one way or another and that we should not get all fussy because some dude who did not grow up with the game gave it an objective score. We are R10 gaming freaks who have resorted to this small gaming site to huddle for retrogaming warmth. We know the truth, the game is better than the score....at least for us it is.

[Dire 51]

I read the review a few days ago, shook my head and moved on.

[vintagegamecrazy]

Not a huge fan of the game either, don't mind it and I would rate it higher but I wouldn't praise it as a best for the console.

[Nebagram]

It's going to be mostly nostalgia/retro fans who buy VC games anyway, surely it'd make sense to have someone of the same ilk reviewing them?

[roushimsx]

The game has aged terribly and even though it was a cute little novelty back when it came out, it's still a pretty weak game. Frank Provo has been reviewing for Gamespot for years for their handheld section, doing Gameboy/Gameboy Color/Gameboy Advance reviews, btw. I don't remember if he actually owned a TG16 back in the day, but I know he was pretty familiar with it back then.

I love a good classic as much as anyone, but Splaterhouse TG16? Shit, I doubt I'd even put 15 minutes of my time into it anymore and I damn well wouldn't spend $6 on a digital copy of it.


It's going to be mostly nostalgia/retro fans who buy VC games anyway, surely it'd make sense to have someone of the same ilk reviewing them?

I love how this always pops up whenever someone sees a negative review of one of their favorite old games. It's not like Frank didn't have one of the first River City Ransom webpages (http://www3.pair.com/mosaic/rcr/) or anything. He's just one of the many retrogamers that agrees that Splatterhouse is not a good game.

[GillianSeed]

Um, yeah.... Right. Obviously, this dude never owned a TG-16 back in the day. Those of us that did, have very fond memories of Splatterhouse, and I don't think any of us think it's a game to play for 15 minutes and then to move on to something else.


Well that's just it, not everyone who owns a Wii has fond memories of playing Splatterhouse on their TG-16s as a kid. A lot of folks will be playing it for the first time, and frankly there are far better games competing for their VC dollars. He's reviewing the game itself, not the idea of the game. ("cool, I get to be Jason and whack things with cleavers!")

Don't get me wrong -- I consider myself a fan of the series and downloaded it the other day (also own the Genesis sequels). But I've played it for maybe 10-15 minutes since then, whereas Beyond Oasis held my interest through to the end.

It definitely has some novelty value and has earned its niche in video game history, but those looking for a great gameplay should indeed look elsewhere. Rose-colored glasses shouldn't be a requirement for enjoying retro games.

[Steven]

Gamespot eh? Same fools who rated all those good Saturn games horribly bad many many moons ago. NiGHTS was not only slammed to the ground, but it was clear the reviewer barely played it by some of the game description text he had.

But my policy? Don't let these bad reviews upset you too much. Like Dire51, I just move on if it's obvious the reviewer did a shitty job on it.

[Arcade Antics]

I really don't know much of anything about Frank Provo, the guy that ended up reviewing Splatterhouse for GameSpot, other than to know that this guy is flat out wrong. 4.7. Can you freaking believe that? 4.7?

I know one freaking thing. 4.7 is the guy's opinion, so by definition, it cannot be wrong. :)

[MegaDrive20XX]

1up.com even slammed Splatterhouse, calling it "Boring and Silly" by today's standards, according to the "Retronauts".

[cyberfluxor]

You have to remember that the people reading these reviews are people who don't know what these games are, or at least that is the intended audience, so they know whether or not to make a purchase. Just because a game was great when it came out doesn't mean newcomers are going to appreciate it. Which is probably why I'm not a huge fan of this game, I played it for the first time recently (within last few years).
That's the way I look at it, and Arcade Antics hit the nail on the coffin to seal it.

Although I played well more than 15 minutes on this game, although it wasn't on a glorious TG-16 rather a Genesis (and was the 3rd installment), it's a really good beat 'em up. The score is pretty low for what the game stood for years ago and even today should deserve a little more love but these are modern times for a classic to be brought up in. If there were a bigger following of the series there might been some room to have a new game come out with current generation details and gameplay but we'll just have to wait. Which brings out a good question: For those classic games that get a ton of downloads on the Wii will Nintendo potentially breathe new life into it?

[Bratwurst]

Splatterhouse has not aged well and the TG-16 port is weak compared to the arcade original anyway.

[NE146]

Here man.. as someone who has perspective of playing both the arcade game as well as owning the Turbografx version in it's time, my opinion of it was solid back then, and time hasn't changed it. To me TG16 Splatterhouse was a dissapointment.

They just took out a lot of the gore and the effects and that really made the game what it is. And for me even when it was a current gen game, I just thought the game was half assed. A lot of the backgrounds were gone.. it was just simply a lot plainer. And that's really the whole atmosphere of the game you hoped would have made it.

My roommates didn't "get" the game when they played it and I would tell them "If you played the arcade game you'd see whats cool about this game" etc. So yeah. Splatterhouse was and still is a poor effort. Nice to have though :D

[Dire 51]

The way I see it, you either like Splatterhouse or you don't. There's not much middle ground. Even I - probably the biggest Splatterhouse fan here - have admitted, and on West Mansion no less, that the Splatterhouse games have never been heavyweights in the gameplay department, but for what they are they don't need to be. As such, that's going to turn a lot of people off to the series, especially newcomers to it (although there will be some that play it and enjoy it). If you enjoy the Splatterhouse games, that's all that really matters. If you don't, there's plenty of other games to play. It's as simple as that.

I personally still like the TG16 port; but then again, I've always liked it. No nostalgia issues here. Yes, I do prefer the arcade version, but I've enjoyed the TG16 port since day one. That hasn't changed at all in nearly 17 years - and if I had a Wii, I'd download it happily and play the hell out of it.

[Fighter17]

Gamespot even gave low scores to Gain Ground (4.7).

That's a crime itself.

[BydoEmpire]

1up.com even slammed Splatterhouse, calling it "Boring and Silly" by today's standards, according to the "Retronauts".I lost all respect for Retronauts after their ridiculous Sega Master System show. The c64 show was bad enough, but the SMS one pushed me over the edge, and I unsubscribed from the podcast. If they want to do a show on a given machine, fine, but you need to have someone that actually knows something about it. They knew nothing about the SMS games, and what little time they spent on those games, they just complained about stuff they never played. Just a poor, poor show all around. *sigh*. A few earlier episodes were okay, but it's gone downhill terribly.

Back on track, I enjoyed Splatterhouse back in the day, and since I've long since parted with my TG-16 (unfortunatley) I picked it up for the VC. It's not a great game, but I'm enjoying playing through it again. It's very simple, but still pretty fun. I don't trust game reviewers anymore, particularly when it comes to retro games.

[heybtbm]

Nostalgia =/= good game

Words to live by.

[Steve W]

My main problem with the TG-16 game was the lousy sound. I loved the crap out of the arcade game, and I bought a Turbo just so I could play the home version. The sounds in the arcade were fantastic (for example, at the beginning when you fall into the sewers and smash those 'water golems' with a stick and they made a great roar) but the sound effects in the Turbo version were too weedy. Still, I enjoyed the gameplay, if not the limited graphics and sound.

[MarioMania]

I lost all respect for Retronauts after their ridiculous Sega Master System show. The c64 show was bad enough, but the SMS one pushed me over the edge, and I unsubscribed from the podcast. If they want to do a show on a given machine, fine, but you need to have someone that actually knows something about it. They knew nothing about the SMS games, and what little time they spent on those games, they just complained about stuff they never played. Just a poor, poor show all around. *sigh*. A few earlier episodes were okay, but it's gone downhill terribly.

Back on track, I enjoyed Splatterhouse back in the day, and since I've long since parted with my TG-16 (unfortunatley) I picked it up for the VC. It's not a great game, but I'm enjoying playing through it again. It's very simple, but still pretty fun. I don't trust game reviewers anymore, particularly when it comes to retro games.

Do you have a link to it..I want to see

[MrSmiley381]

Splatterhouse = Awesome
Spaltterhouse 2 = Fucking Awesome
Splatterhouse 3 = Super Fucking Awesome
Splatterhouse: Wanpaku Graffiti = Super Fucking Awesome SD Splatterhouse

Seriously, what a lame review. Rory even loves the game, he appreciated the BiggyMan strategy tip I gave him.

[7th lutz]

What is the big deal? If you look at gamespot ratings for some of the virtual game console games, they are off! Here are some of them:

Golden Axe -6.5
Sonic the Hedgehog -7.3
Super Castlevania IV -7.8
Mario Kart 64 -6.2
Kirby's Adventure -7.3
Streets of Rage -6.7
Contra III: The Alien Wars -7.2
Donkey Kong Country -7.7

[stargate]

I personally enjoyed the TG-16 port of Splatterhouse and still do. I had never played the game before because it was somewhat of a rare video game and there were none in my area. So the TG-16 port was my first experience with the game.

It is still a cool looking, spooky, side scroller and I dig it !!!

[Everton1878]

What is the big deal? If you look at gamespot ratings for some of the virtual game console games, they are off! Here are some of them:

Golden Axe -6.5
Sonic the Hedgehog -7.3
Super Castlevania IV -7.8
Mario Kart 64 -6.2
Kirby's Adventure -7.3
Streets of Rage -6.7
Contra III: The Alien Wars -7.2
Donkey Kong Country -7.7

O_O

Wow

[Hardcore]

I don't ever trust an advertisement-driven review.

You give me a review from a player that didn't take money from x developer, and I'll read it through.

Splatterhouse is a good game.

Oh, and Anthony, congrats on not making this post a book.

[7th lutz]

I don't trust gamespot for virtual game consoles anyway they underrated Legend of Zelda with it being a 8.0. If you want a site to look at virtual game console scores go to http://www.Virtual-turbo.com for tg-16 games.

[GillianSeed]

I don't trust gamespot for virtual game consoles anyway they underrated Legend of Zelda with it being a 8.0. If you want a site to look at virtual game console scores go to http://www.Virtual-turbo.com for tg-16 games.

Yet you trust a site that gives Alien Crush a 9?

[roushimsx]

I don't trust gamespot for virtual game consoles anyway they underrated Legend of Zelda with it being a 8.0.

Oh yea, I can totally see how an 8.0 is completely underrated. After all, according to Gamespot's scoring system an 8.0 is only a "Great" and Legend of Zelda NES is so much more than "Great", especially 20 years after its initial release. It's so much greater than "Great" and has aged wonderfully, drawing in legions of new players with its greater than "Great"ness.

In fact, now that Legend of Zelda is on the Wii via Virtual Console, it's even better than it was on the GBA, which is why itt's so much better than merely being "Good" (http://www.gamespot.com/gba/rpg/famicomminithelegendofzelda/index.html). Yes Sir, that game is so much "Great"er than that. What a criminally underrated game.

Thank god you were able to point out a completely biased review site that caters towards people that wander around with rose tinted glasses on, because I don't know what I'd do with myself if I was stuck reading shitty major game sites with their sell out bullshit reviews from cockgobblers that obviously don't understand what a true classic really is or who they're marketed towards. Thank you very much, good sir.

[Overbite]

Oh yea, I can totally see how an 8.0 is completely underrated. After all, according to Gamespot's scoring system an 8.0 is only a "Great" and Legend of Zelda NES is so much more than "Great", especially 20 years after its initial release. It's so much greater than "Great" and has aged wonderfully, drawing in legions of new players with its greater than "Great"ness.

In fact, now that Legend of Zelda is on the Wii via Virtual Console, it's even better than it was on the GBA, which is why itt's so much better than merely being "Good" (http://www.gamespot.com/gba/rpg/famicomminithelegendofzelda/index.html). Yes Sir, that game is so much "Great"er than that. What a criminally underrated game.

Thank god you were able to point out a completely biased review site that caters towards people that wander around with rose tinted glasses on, because I don't know what I'd do with myself if I was stuck reading shitty major game sites with their sell out bullshit reviews from cockgobblers that obviously don't understand what a true classic really is or who they're marketed towards. Thank you very much, good sir.

dammit i was gonna say that

[j_factor]

Gamespot sucks. The end.

[7th lutz]

Yet you trust a site that gives Alien Crush a 9?

I do own Alien Crush for my tg-16, and I bought at a fleed Market last year. I is very good pinball based on other pinball games I own on game systems. I would give a 8.0. It is not good as Devil's Crush. Did you look at the Dungeon Explorer review.


While I trust the site for some of its reviews, It is great for its previews of games. The site owner does have a contact with a person who works for Hudson soft for what games will being coming out for the virtual game console, but not the order along with the fact the contact does not give all the games that will be released.

You have look at some of their other games that were reviewed. I do think some of the reviews were I don't completely trust it though, I also look ign's virtual game console reviews along with the video game critic's tg-16 reviews. Ign is not as harsh as gamespot. I buy virtual game console games for the tg-16 only and they are for games that are out of my price range and also Japan only games.

[7th lutz]

Oh yea, I can totally see how an 8.0 is completely underrated. After all, according to Gamespot's scoring system an 8.0 is only a "Great" and Legend of Zelda NES is so much more than "Great", especially 20 years after its initial release. It's so much greater than "Great" and has aged wonderfully, drawing in legions of new players with its greater than "Great"ness.



From a rating standpoint a 8.0 is supposed to a score that means it is great game is off. I owned game magazines that considered an 8.0 a good game. It a game is rated more then a 9.0 then it is one the greatest games of all time.

The rating scale is not consistent for each review site or magazine that uses a 1-10 scoring system. This like when I attended college. When I was in college most of my teachers thought anyone who gets 90 percent of the test right gets an "A-", but I had teachers also the that anyone who gets a 90 percent right on a test gets a B+.

[ubersaurus]

From a rating standpoint a 8.0 is supposed to a score that means it is great game is off. I owned game magazines that considered an 8.0 a good game. It a game is rated more then a 9.0 then it is one the greatest games of all time.

The rating scale is not consistent for each review site or magazine that uses a 1-10 scoring system. This like when I attended college. When I was in college most of my teachers thought anyone who gets 90 percent of the test right gets an "A-", but I had teachers also the that anyone who gets a 90 percent right on a test gets a B+.

But for Gamespot, an 8 is a great game. A 5 is an average game. 5 is not a bad rating, it just means it's not the best damn thing on the market right now.

[Anthony1]

Regardless of the score of Splatterhouse, I just think it's a very interesting phenomenom to see all these websites reviewing retro games. Obviously, with Xbox Live Arcade, Playstation Network and Virtual Console, they feel they have a duty to review every game that comes down the pipe for these services. That's very understandable. People expect them to review everything that comes out. I don't have a problem with that. I just think that they need to look at their reviews from two different angles.


1. Is the person buying the game totally new to this game, and never heard of it, and has never played it?

2. Is the person buying the game revisiting something from their past?


I really think they need to consider both options. Many people buying games on those various services are falling into either one camp or the other. If somebody is totally new to Splatterhouse for the TG-16 and knows nothing about the history of the TG-16 and knows nothing about Splatterhouse, and is just taking the game at face value, then certainly, I can understand a pretty low score. It is just an average beat em up. I still think it should score higher than 4.7, even under this scenario, but I can understand a lower score.

If the person who's buying the game owned a TG-16 back in the day, and either knew a bit about Splatterhouse, or maybe even owned it or played it, then I think you need to look at the game from a slightly different standpoint. The Nostalgic factor then comes into play, and for a game like Splatterhouse, I think it really gives it a big boost. After seeing this review, I pulled out my Splatterhouse hu card and gave it some playtime. After doing so, I do realize that ultimately, it's a pretty mediocre beat em up, but I think it still has alot of originality for it's theme and how it did things. Also, it does have alot of Nostalgic power for TG-16 owners. Splatterhouse was a huge game for the TG-16. When Splatterhouse first came out for the TG-16 it was a major release. I think if you see anybody giving lists of TG-16 games they recommend, there is a very high chance of Splatterhouse being one of the 10 that is recommended. I personally would recommend Splatterhouse as one of the 10 quintessential USA TG-16 hu cards to play. A game like that does not deserve a 4.7


Again, I said it before, and I'm going to stick by it. Splatterhouse for TG-16 isn't the greatest game in the world by a long shot, in fact, it's pretty average if you really scrutinize it, but to me 4.7 means utter crap. Splatterhouse on TG-16 is not utter crap.

[cyberfluxor]

Sonic the Hedgehog -7.3
I'm bet at some point in that review they say something like:
"Oh, what a great game. I remember this!"
.. and then try to influence Sega to go back to their roots. If you're lucky they'll toss in at the end:
"Sega does what Nintendont."

[Poofta!]

An interesting thing is happening right now in the world of retro gaming. Video Game websites that normally only cover modern, current day video games, are feeling the need to review every game that comes to the Virtual Console for Nintendo's Wii. This means games like Splatterhouse (TG-16), Gain Ground (Genesis), Legend of Kage (NES) and Bio-Hazard Battle (Genesis) are being reviewed by gaming editors that normally cover the latest Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 and Nintendo Wii games. Certainly, it's very possible that the review duties for these old school games are being handed to the resident retrogamer amongst the staff for these gaming websites, but you never really know. They could simply be pulling a guy who doesn't know Alex Kidd from Adam, and telling him to sit down and play Splatterhouse and give a review of the game.

I really don't know much of anything about Frank Provo, the guy that ended up reviewing Splatterhouse for GameSpot, other than to know that this guy is flat out wrong. 4.7. Can you freaking believe that? 4.7? You got to be freaking kidding me. Splatterhouse is one of the absolute classic TurboGrafx-16 games. Sure, it might not be the greatest game in the world, but 4.7 is the kinda score that you give to Pimp My Ride or some crap like that. Not a freaking TG-16 classic. Here is a quote from his review:

"Splatterhouse is the kind of simplistic, repetitive beat-'em-up that you'll play for about 15 minutes before moving on to something else. "


Um, yeah.... Right. Obviously, this dude never owned a TG-16 back in the day. Those of us that did, have very fond memories of Splatterhouse, and I don't think any of us think it's a game to play for 15 minutes and then to move on to something else. Again, the game isn't the greatest game in the world by any stretch of the imagination, but seeing it get a score like 4.7 brings a tear to my eye. It appears that the masses agree with me, because 20 people have chimed in to give it an average score of 7.1. Now, had I seen that Splaterhouse got a 7.0 or a 6.9, or even a 6.0, I probably wouldn't even have noticed it. But seeing a 4.7 next to the name Splatterhouse definitely shocked me to a degree.

Here is the full review:

http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/splatterhousetg16/review.html?sid=6167749



Anthony man, i love you and your posts, including this one, and i almost always agree with you... except this time.

i am glad the people reviewing these games usually don't know jack from shit about classic games and probably haven't owned the original consoles or played the games before. heres why:

nostalgia is a deceitful bitch.

whatever feelings or thoughts or memories you have attached to a game, may improved or lessen the gaming experience and likability of that game for you. but thats just it, its for you. not me.

i want a completely unbiased review of a game im considering buying and how it holds up to other games today, since its competing for my gaming dollar (not collecting). if im gonna put cash down on a game im gonna play, i wanna know if its worth it, should i maybe save it and put it towards a newer game? crackdown? halo 3? or even a new console, or maybe even throw it into my collecting budget. Mario world on the VC holds up great to any game released even today, and is totally worth 8 dollars to me to play through. other games may not, no matter how awesome they were to someone back then or how 'classic' they are. and if a modern gamer tells me this game isn't fun, and my money is better spent elsewhere, ill take that into consideration.

i absolutely hate that VC doesn't have playable demos, just as much as i absolutely love that the 360 does. my decision between buying TMNT on VC for 600 points vs the TMNT on 360, was very quickly solved once i played the demo on 360... and purchased it minutes later.

[bangtango]

What is the big deal? If you look at gamespot ratings for some of the virtual game console games, they are off! Here are some of them:

Golden Axe -6.5
Sonic the Hedgehog -7.3
Super Castlevania IV -7.8
Mario Kart 64 -6.2
Kirby's Adventure -7.3
Streets of Rage -6.7
Contra III: The Alien Wars -7.2
Donkey Kong Country -7.7

Well, it isn't like Gamespot was a well-known web site when most of these games came out originally. I'll leave it at that. So I wouldn't expect a more favorable review for anything on this list. Most of the people on their web site probably weren't even working in the video game business/industry back then, regardless of what kind of history the Splatterhouse reviewer supposedly has as a writer (someone mentioned it earlier). Why did he give it a bad review? He's probably undersexed or just pissed because you can't unlock a hundred different characters or a hundred different outfits the second time you play through Splatterhouse like you can in the "games of today." No hidden content and no free-roaming gameplay, so no fun. That's what I think his opinion is based on.

That is a lot like EGM all of a sudden claiming a few times in the past 10-12 issues how the Mortal Kombat series always sucked, even the first 2 games, which obviously comes from their new writers. This is in contrast to EGM's old team who was writing for the magazine when the first Mortal Kombat games came out and didn't have a problem with the games then. In fact, their writers back then thought the first 3 games were pretty good from what I remember. Meanwhile, their current staff, who thinks fighting games started with Tekken 2, bash the early MK games every time a new version comes out and say Part 1 and 2 "were never good in the first place."

It also reminds me of the debate on this forum awhile back in which Double Dragon, Final Fight and Streets of Rage were debated. Some people here were actually claiming Double Dragon and Final Fight are crappy games (that actually "suck") because Streets of Rage came out later and "was so much better than those two." Whatever???

[Poofta!]

Oh yea, I can totally see how an 8.0 is completely underrated. After all, according to Gamespot's scoring system an 8.0 is only a "Great" and Legend of Zelda NES is so much more than "Great", especially 20 years after its initial release. It's so much greater than "Great" and has aged wonderfully, drawing in legions of new players with its greater than "Great"ness.

In fact, now that Legend of Zelda is on the Wii via Virtual Console, it's even better than it was on the GBA, which is why itt's so much better than merely being "Good" (http://www.gamespot.com/gba/rpg/famicomminithelegendofzelda/index.html). Yes Sir, that game is so much "Great"er than that. What a criminally underrated game.

Thank god you were able to point out a completely biased review site that caters towards people that wander around with rose tinted glasses on, because I don't know what I'd do with myself if I was stuck reading shitty major game sites with their sell out bullshit reviews from cockgobblers that obviously don't understand what a true classic really is or who they're marketed towards. Thank you very much, good sir.

ROFL. gold. pure gold.

plus that game was already out on the wii, via that gamecube compilation...

[Captain Wrong]

News flash: people have different opinions on stuff. Film at 11.

[Anthony1]

nostalgia is a deceitful bitch.

whatever feelings or thoughts or memories you have attached to a game, may improved or lessen the gaming experience and likability of that game for you. but thats just it, its for you. not me.

i want a completely unbiased review of a game im considering buying and how it holds up to other games today, since its competing for my gaming dollar (not collecting). if im gonna put cash down on a game im gonna play, i wanna know if its worth it, should i maybe save it and put it towards a newer game? crackdown? halo 3? or even a new console, or maybe even throw it into my collecting budget. Mario world on the VC holds up great to any game released even today, and is totally worth 8 dollars to me to play through. other games may not, no matter how awesome they were to someone back then or how 'classic' they are. and if a modern gamer tells me this game isn't fun, and my money is better spent elsewhere, ill take that into consideration.

.


Word Skippy. I agree with all you're saying above, I just think that retro reviews for these games coming to VC and XBLA and PN should take into consideration both sides of the coin. They should throw a bone for people with a nostalgic factor, and they should also look at it from the standpoint of somebody that doesn't know a TurboGrafx-16 from a Turbo Deisel Engine. I honestly think they can cover both sides.

[GillianSeed]

I just think that retro reviews for these games coming to VC and XBLA and PN should take into consideration both sides of the coin. They should throw a bone for people with a nostalgic factor, and they should also look at it from the standpoint of somebody that doesn't know a TurboGrafx-16 from a Turbo Deisel Engine. I honestly think they can cover both sides.

Why stop there? Should Star Wars games get two review scores? (one for SW fans, one for non-fans) Gundam games? Sandbox games? Reviews are written for a general audience and Gamespot's audience wants to know if the game is worth playing today, not was it worth playing 17 years ago.

Splatterhouse's notoriety comes not from its gameplay elements, but from its gimmick -- the gore, the hockey mask, the weapons. The problem is that it seems laughably tame by today's standards -- so all you're left with is the gamplay, which simply doesn't hold up.

I don't see why they should give it a pass just because it was popular back in the day, especially when there are plenty of other TG-16 VC titles that have stood the test of time. (Military Madness, Dragon's Curse, Bomberman 93, etc)

When you consider the other VC titles that Splatterhouse is up against I think 4.7 is pretty fair.

[Steven]

Wow, there seems to be quite a bit of talk regarding "ratings" in reviews lately. Here's the topic from HG101 for those who would be interested

http://www.hg101.proboards92.com/index.cgi?board=games&action=display&thread=1175635435


As I said in that topic, on the topic of numbers appearing in reviews, here's my 2 cents. Since, well, if you've seen my site you know I do include numbers in my Saturn and SNES reviews.

1. I can see why people dislike/hate reviews (or numbers, ratings, whatever). I only dislike it really when the reviewer acts as though his final score IS the end-all, be-all value of the game. That if someone were to say his 9/10 game they think as 6/10, he'd become a raging prick. I've seen these reviewers before and shake my head at them. Everyone has varying opinions

2. To me, reviews with "traditional EGM-style" ratings at the end I always have enjoyed. The reason I have numerical values? Just for fun, they're my personal opinion and I'm not imposing them on anyone saying "THIS GAME IS 9 OUT OF 10 IF YOU DISAGREE YOU SUCK". I have them there for fun. They're all to be taken at your discretion.

3. I don't mind pieces/reviews without numbers at the end, either. The most important thing is the material found in the review and the style, and the "life" so to speak. Those to me are more important than a bunch of numbers.

I don't get too worked up over it one way or the other. If it's there, great. If not, that's fine too. Personally, I think they're fun. I dig the ole EGM/GameFan style numerical review style...

Finally, I'd like to say to me a 5 is strictly mediocre. An 8 isn't "great" to me... an 8 is "very good."

As others have said, each reviewer has his own scale. I simply rate games based on its merits of quality and the time it was released, and the genre. My ratings are simply there for a "what it's worth" note. It's my personal opinion and I've never passed them as being the end-all, be-all.

In other words, people should take ratings with a grain of salt. I personally enjoyed SNES B.O.B and feel, having beat it, that it deserves an 8.0. On the other hand, I could understand if people gave it 5's or 6's, which some have. It's all perspective, and I just have fun with my site. And for me, having overall ratings is fun.

[Poofta!]

one thing occured to me, they dont really need to give us old school gamers our own reviews for VC or xblm etc etc cause honestly, those reviews (and the ones out now) wont convince anyone on these forums. we've all played these games before, for the most part we know what we're getting. that terrible review score of the game didnt stop you or me from buying it nevertheless. and honestly, since all these games are carts, they can all be easily found online and tried before buying.

the most i care about reviews for VC games is if the game has any emulation flaws, additions, bugs etc. how it plays on teh controller etc etc. if i already know the game, i know i want it or not (like the case with starfox 64, castlevania4, splatterhouse, mario world and countless others). if im really unfamiliar with the game, then i wanna know how it competes with other things i can buy today for that price, or ill jsut try it for myself.

[ProgrammingAce]

Why on earth would a game reviewer need to provide a score for someone who has already owned the game? If you had the game 10 years ago, why would you need a review?

Reviewers are going to focus on people who have never played before, which means spatterhouse is going to get a 4.7, history be dammed.

[7th lutz]

one thing occured to me, they dont really need to give us old school gamers our own reviews for VC or xblm etc etc cause honestly, those reviews (and the ones out now) wont convince anyone on these forums. we've all played these games before, for the most part we know what we're getting. that terrible review score of the game didnt stop you or me from buying it nevertheless. and honestly, since all these games are carts, they can all be easily found online and tried before buying.



Not quite for convincing people on these forums to be a game on the virtual game console. I think there are some people on these forums never owned a tg-16 system at all. I think there are games for the virtual game console that people haven't played on these forums. I don't like to download roms due to my beliefs of the matter. I didn't get a tg-16 till last year and I own 6 games for it now. When Lode Runner Battle gets released this month, there is not a lot of sites that already have reviews on the game. I feel Load runner Battle is one of the many japan only games that will make it on the virtual game console. Gamers will need to depend on gamespot or Ign for the Japan only ratings.

[nate1749]

sorry, double post.. I love when the server dies.

[nate1749]

I agree you can't attach a memory to a score.

I played the game when I was a kid over at my friends and I thought it was cool because of the blood and gore and the amazing graphics - and overall I remember us having a lot of fun playing it. Recently I got to play the game again and I was pretty excited and then the let down hit. I think 4.7 is generous, this game is flat out awful. I like plenty of retro games, but not this one - but that's just me. I see your point though, I would just give Pimp My Ride a 0 then instead of a 4.

Also, isn't this game a "classic," because of the gore and how risky it was at that time? I mean even as a kid I don't remember this amazing gameplay, just fun killing things (since we were kids and had never seen anything like this before).

To me retro gaming is like music. Some hold up and are still great today, most aren't. Splatterhouse in the music world would have been 2 Live Crew who was known for their raunchy lyrics, but shock value fades fast.

Nate

[Trebuken]

If we compare this game to Gears of War, I could appreciate the 4.7 of the review, but given that the Virtual Console is not meant to compete with such a title I think we need to assume that any review for the VC would neccesarily have a nostaligic bent to it, thus making th 4.7 ridiculous for a game of the caliber.

I generally concur with Gamepot's reviews of current games (give or take a .5), but it appears that their system for reborn games needs work.

[ubersaurus]

If we compare this game to Gears of War, I could appreciate the 4.7 of the review, but given that the Virtual Console is not meant to compete with such a title I think we need to assume that any review for the VC would neccesarily have a nostaligic bent to it, thus making th 4.7 ridiculous for a game of the caliber.

I generally concur with Gamepot's reviews of current games (give or take a .5), but it appears that their system for reborn games needs work.

But it is competing. It's still buying a game for a certain amount of money on "new" market. They don't score Xbox live arcade games any differently just because they're cheaper than a AAA disc release. Why should they for Virtual Console?

Nostalgia has no place in the reviews of someplace like Gamespot. Like it's been said, just because someone likes old games doesn't mean they've played em. I bought Soldier Blade without ever having played it back in the day, or on emulation. I have no nostalgia for it, but I still want to know if it's good, and I still am spending money on it.

Why should they slant it for a small subset of people when guys like me are in the majority?

[chrisbid]

its just another example of how retarded the 100 point rating scale is. all of their VC review scores were totally pulled out of their collective ass. there are no reference points or any specific criteria so how anyone can subjectively give a super specific score to any game, and especially a 15 year old classic game is beyond me.

[bangtango]

But it is competing. It's still buying a game for a certain amount of money on "new" market. They don't score Xbox live arcade games any differently just because they're cheaper than a AAA disc release. Why should they for Virtual Console?

Nostalgia has no place in the reviews of someplace like Gamespot. Like it's been said, just because someone likes old games doesn't mean they've played em. I bought Soldier Blade without ever having played it back in the day, or on emulation. I have no nostalgia for it, but I still want to know if it's good, and I still am spending money on it.

Why should they slant it for a small subset of people when guys like me are in the majority?

The price has to be considered because there aren't a ton of people who will feel ripped off after buying Splatterhouse and then playing it. Not all of them may love it but most people will accept it for its dated gameplay and flaws, considering the price. Instead of a score, I would just want to know if it would be worth the money.

You make a good point overall. Still, I understand where Anthony1 is coming from for one reason. A lot of reviewers are taking perfectly good "old" games, which are available for download, like Splatterhouse or Streets of Rage and making them out to be no better than other downloadable stuff like Urban Champion or Baseball on NES. I know it is just the opinion of the reviewer and it isn't the same person reviewing each game. However, I do stand by my statement. There aren't a lot of people who will feel ripped off over what they pay for Splatterhouse, unless it is somebody who is fairly young and never played a 2D side scroller or beat-em-up. So a 4.7 is a little misleading to someone who was gaming regularly when the TG16 was first released but never played anything on the system, including Splatterhouse.

[whoisKeel]

Fine, don't compare it to current games. Compare it to other games being release on the VC. So go ahead and give Splatterhouse an 8, and give Zelda that 8 too, because they are both equally good, right?

[roushimsx]

Fine, don't compare it to current games. Compare it to other games being release on the VC. So go ahead and give Splatterhouse an 8, and give Zelda that 8 too, because they are both equally good, right?

Shit no, Splatterhouse gets an 11 and Zelda gets a 15.3. Super Mario Brothers gets the top score of yellow, though.

[stargate]

I do believe that there are some people, game reviewers included, that just don't "get" classic gaming. I mean, I have friends who refuse to play anything prior to PS2. When I can manage to get them to play for a few minutes, they crap all over it, saying how simple the gameplay is, how the graphics suck, etc. And yes, there are game reviewers that are like this and when you ask them to review a classic game, they are going to crap all over it.

So.... when I go looking for classic game reviews, I stick with sites that specialize in classic gaming or sites like this one where I know that the folks reviewing the games are fans and love the genre. This way I get reviews that make sense to me and I can trust.

[Anthony1]

I think 4.7 is generous, this game is flat out awful.



DANG!!!!

Wow bro, don't go easy on it, tell it like it is, lol. Man... I'm willing to step back for a second, and take all my nostalgic feelings out of the equation, but I still think Splatterhouse is a decent beat-em up type game. I mean, sure it's not the greatest game in the world. Not even close. It's not even that great a beat-em up, but it's not complete garbage. You obviously are agreeing with the reviewer, if you're going to say it's flat out awful. I just can't understand how you come to that conclusion. This game originally came out in like 1990 or something. I think games should be judged based on when they hit the scene. I don't think you can compare a game like Splatterhouse to a game like Cloning Clyde. It's just not a fair comparison. Cloning Clyde came out 16 years later.

Alot of people will bag on early PS1 3d games. I will admit they are very chunky, and don't show their age all that well. But still, I understand that those games came out in 1995 and 1996, and at that time, alot of them were pretty extrordinary. Again, I think reviewers should consider when the game originally released.


Man, I need to see what all the various sites gave Dungeon Explorer for the TG-16. Dungeon Explorer is one of my all-time favorite Turbo games and if they clowned that game, I'm going to be pissed as hell!!

[Kuros]

What is the big deal? If you look at gamespot ratings for some of the virtual game console games, they are off! Here are some of them:

Golden Axe -6.5
Sonic the Hedgehog -7.3
Super Castlevania IV -7.8
Mario Kart 64 -6.2
Kirby's Adventure -7.3
Streets of Rage -6.7
Contra III: The Alien Wars -7.2
Donkey Kong Country -7.7

O_O

*Breaks out the shotgun*

[ubersaurus]

DANG!!!!

Wow bro, don't go easy on it, tell it like it is, lol. Man... I'm willing to step back for a second, and take all my nostalgic feelings out of the equation, but I still think Splatterhouse is a decent beat-em up type game. I mean, sure it's not the greatest game in the world. Not even close. It's not even that great a beat-em up, but it's not complete garbage. You obviously are agreeing with the reviewer, if you're going to say it's flat out awful. I just can't understand how you come to that conclusion. This game originally came out in like 1990 or something. I think games should be judged based on when they hit the scene. I don't think you can compare a game like Splatterhouse to a game like Cloning Clyde. It's just not a fair comparison. Cloning Clyde came out 16 years later.

Alot of people will bag on early PS1 3d games. I will admit they are very chunky, and don't show their age all that well. But still, I understand that those games came out in 1995 and 1996, and at that time, alot of them were pretty extrordinary. Again, I think reviewers should consider when the game originally released.


Man, I need to see what all the various sites gave Dungeon Explorer for the TG-16. Dungeon Explorer is one of my all-time favorite Turbo games and if they clowned that game, I'm going to be pissed as hell!!

But the thing is that it's selling NOW. In a sense it came out a second time. That's why it can be compared to Cloning Clyde, because it's had a second mass market release. Any review has to be made with that in mind.

You yourself just said that it's a pretty average game, so getting close to a 5(which they consider a pretty average game) isn't really bad. You have to remember, these guys are mainstream reviewers, not classic game reviewers. They simply can't say "it used to be great, even if it hasn't aged well it's still worth your money."

[ALAKA]

The only question that should be asked is if Splatterhouse is fun to play right now. Nostalgia is an obsolete criteria because it is to much of an egocentric factor to judge something objectively. Also the one to ten ranking system with the decimal to the tenth is a futile attempt at trying to rate games because it gives you a 100 different options to rate the game. seriously what's the difference if a game gets a 2.3 or a 2.6 or a 3.5 for that matter. now does gamespot rate across the board for all its systems or does it rate a game compared to other games on that system? if it rates games across the board then a 4.7 for splatterhouse is probably accurate. if it's being compared to other tg-16 games it may be another story. anyway that's my opinion on this subject.

[Dire 51]

Nostalgia. That seems to be a word tossed around in this thread quite a bit, even by myself at one point. What exactly is the definition of nostalgia here? To me, it can be summed up like this: picking up something you haven't seen/read/played in X amount of years, watching/reading/playing it and subsequently getting lost in the memories (typical nostalgic quote: "oh man, I remember playing this all the time in high school with my friend, we used to stay up and work on this" etc).

For those of us that have played these games on a regular basis ever since they were released (for example, I've been playing the TG16 Splatterhouse regularly ever since 1990. There hasn't been a year that's gone by since that I haven't played through and finished it at least once), is the term nostalgia still going to be applied? We have fond memories of the first time we played these games, and maybe have memories of friends we played them with and haven't seen in years (or things of that nature), but can you apply the word nostalgia to what's been a regular part of our lives for so long?

[GillianSeed]

This game originally came out in like 1990 or something. I think games should be judged based on when they hit the scene.


OK then, how about comparing it to Final Fight -- another brawler which came out the same year? Or to Streets of Rage, which came out the following year? Or heck even Double Dragon which came out a few years earlier.

If you're going to give Splatterhouse a 7 or 8 then what are you going to rate these games, which far exceed it in terms of gameplay mechanics? See, reviewers have to think in these terms -- whereas you are just cheesed off because someone gave your pet game a low review.

[GillianSeed]

Nostalgia. That seems to be a word tossed around in this thread quite a bit, even by myself at one point. What exactly is the definition of nostalgia here?


nostalgia
a wistful desire to return in thought or in fact to a former time in one's life, to one's home or homeland, or to one's family and friends; a sentimental yearning for the happiness of a former place or time: a nostalgia for his college days.



For those of us that have played these games on a regular basis ever since they were released (for example, I've been playing the TG16 Splatterhouse regularly ever since 1990. There hasn't been a year that's gone by since that I haven't played through and finished it at least once), is the term nostalgia still going to be applied? We have fond memories of the first time we played these games, and maybe have memories of friends we played them with and haven't seen in years (or things of that nature), but can you apply the word nostalgia to what's been a regular part of our lives for so long?

I think the mystique around Splatterhouse is a great example of nostalgia in action. Everyone looks back on it as this amazing title, and to a certain extent it did push some boundaries -- the weapons, the hockey mask, the "gore," these were all fresh concepts back in 1990.

But unfortunately for Splatterhouse, the concept wasn't married with strong gameplay elements. So you're left with a title that's forced to rely on its gimmick to survive.

But here in 2007, the gimmick isn't enough -- games like Mortal Kombat, Resident Evil, etc., have pushed those boundaries much farther. So the novelty value has dimmed to a great extent, and what you're left with is a very average/slightly below average brawler. And, for the TG-16, you're dealing with a version that was already toned-down from the arcade in terms of graphic content.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's an interesting game for what it is -- but it just doesn't stand up as a brawler, especially when compared to other brawlers released at the time. You're a fan so you're willing to overlook that and enjoy it for what it is, for what it was... but most folks won't be that charitable. If you didn't have nostalgic feelings towards it, you'd be playing a modern 360 game.

[Dire 51]

I think the mystique around Splatterhouse is a great example of nostalgia in action. Everyone looks back on it as this amazing title, and to a certain extent it did push some boundaries -- the weapons, the hockey mask, the "gore," these were all fresh concepts back in 1990.

But unfortunately for Splatterhouse, the concept wasn't married with strong gameplay elements. So you're left with a title that's forced to rely on its gimmick to survive.

But here in 2007, the gimmick isn't enough -- games like Mortal Kombat, Resident Evil, etc., have pushed those boundaries much farther. So the novelty value has dimmed to a great extent, and what you're left with is a very average/slightly below average brawler. And, for the TG-16, you're dealing with a version that was already toned-down from the arcade in terms of graphic content.
I can't argue with any of that, except that I personally don't think it's average. If you look at the other single-plane brawlers out there (Kung Fu Master, Vigilante, and so on) and compare Splatterhouse to them, in my opinion it's very much above average. I'd even go as far as to say it's the best of the bunch.


Don't get me wrong, I think it's an interesting game for what it is -- but it just doesn't stand up as a brawler, especially when compared to other brawlers released at the time. You're a fan so you're willing to overlook that and enjoy it for what it is, for what it was... but most folks won't be that charitable. If you didn't have nostalgic feelings towards it, you'd be playing a modern 360 game.
If you're comparing Splatterhouse to brawlers like Double Dragon, Final Fight and Streets of Rage: please stop. It's part of a different class of brawlers, as I said before, so you can't compare it to Double Dragon (etc.); in fact, the only SH game that takes after those types of brawlers is 3. Splatterhouse 1 and 2 followed in the footsteps of the games that I mentioned above: Kung Fu Master, Vigilante (etc.); single-plane action with (mostly) one kill enemies.

All that aside, wouldn't you say it's more of a personal preference thing? I've played a lot of the games that are out now, and very few of them have grabbed and held my interest. Yet I keep playing and still enjoy the classics immensely. Is it nostalgia that keeps me playing them? Or is it just my personal preference?

[Anthony1]

All I'm saying, is that in the review, they should put a sentence or two that relates to it's nostalgic value. Something like....


"Today Splatterhouse would be viewed as a somewhat mundane and mediocre side scrolling beat-em up type game, but it must be said that upon it's original release for the TG-16 it was considered one of the better games on the system. Many people would consider Splatterhouse one of the must play TG-16 games."


See, all they gotta do is throw something like that in there, somewhere, and I would be cool with it. I understand how they need to rate the game for the here and now, and for the person that knows nothing about it, but still, throw the people with nostalgic feelings a little bone. Consider Altered Beast for the Genesis. They gave Altered Beast a "5.2 mediocre" rating. Splatterhouse got a "4.7 poor" rating. Only a difference of .5, but I think there is a pretty big difference between being considered poor and mediocre. If Splatterhouse got a rating of mediocre, I could live with that. But poor?

Also, they threw out several bones to the nostalgic crowd with their Altered Beast review. When you first click on the link, at the top of the review it says:

"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"


If you substituted Turbografix and Splatterhouse for Genesis and Altered Beast respectively, I would be cool with that. It's a fair take, and it lets people know that the game did have some extra value from a nostalgic standpoint. Also I have to say that I'd much rather play Splatterhouse from beginning to end than Altered Beast. Of course, Altered Beast was the pack in game for the Genesis, a much more popular system, so people give it a bit more credit than it deserves. But which game would you rather play from beginning to end?

[bangtango]

If you substituted Turbografix and Splatterhouse for Genesis and Altered Beast respectively, I would be cool with that. It's a fair take, and it lets people know that the game did have some extra value from a nostalgic standpoint. Also I have to say that I'd much rather play Splatterhouse from beginning to end than Altered Beast. Of course, Altered Beast was the pack in game for the Genesis, a much more popular system, so people give it a bit more credit than it deserves. But which game would you rather play from beginning to end?

Sorry, I'd rather play Altered Beast. However, I do agree with all of your points aside from that.

To nobody in particular:

"Poor" is a rating that ought to be reserved for downloadable games which failed in the first place, when they originally came out. Take Double Dragon 3, for example, which was a bomb. You know for a fact that someday it will be made available again either on its own or in a DD collection. Most everybody will agree that game (DDIII) does deserve a poor rating, though the number is subject to change IF it comes attached to "better" Double Dragon games like Parts 1 and 2. As for Splatterhouse, it wasn't a dud. So a poor rating is senseless. Save those for Urban Champion or NES Tennis.

[VGfan]

It is a poor game but so are many/most of the games they give a rating of over 7.0.

[7th lutz]

Gamespot gave game tmnt for the nes a 2.7. I think that low. It is a hard game, but it is not as bad as the Ljn games for the nes. They gave the rating because of how difficult the game is. I understand if got a 3.5 or 4.0 as score.

[Trebuken]

But it is competing. It's still buying a game for a certain amount of money on "new" market. They don't score Xbox live arcade games any differently just because they're cheaper than a AAA disc release. Why should they for Virtual Console?

Nostalgia has no place in the reviews of someplace like Gamespot. Like it's been said, just because someone likes old games doesn't mean they've played em. I bought Soldier Blade without ever having played it back in the day, or on emulation. I have no nostalgia for it, but I still want to know if it's good, and I still am spending money on it.

Why should they slant it for a small subset of people when guys like me are in the majority?

People have different expectations when buying one of these games. They are priced significantly cheaper because they cannot compete with new games. No one is buying Splatterhouse thinking it might compare to Gears of War. I feel I (us, we here at DP) can intepret these sorts of reviews, but the majority of people out there will be influenced improperly by these reviews if they are not presented in context.

[nate1749]

People have different expectations when buying one of these games. They are priced significantly cheaper because they cannot compete with new games. No one is buying Splatterhouse thinking it might compare to Gears of War. I feel I (us, we here at DP) can intepret these sorts of reviews, but the majority of people out there will be influenced improperly by these reviews if they are not presented in context.

So if you randomlly pulled 100 gamers and sat them down with splatterhouse, how many of them do you think would say, yeah I like this game, it was fun.

I would say LESS than 47, which is why I think that 4.7 is generous. I gauge games by if they're fun to me or not. The more fun I have the more I like it. That's it, simple. I understand reviews and review scores gauge many elements (although I don't always understand their scoring). Like I had even less fun playing Gods Of War than I did Splatterhouse, so I would personally rate GOW lower than Splatterhouse (even though GI gave GOW a 10). Again, that's just me.

Nate

[evildead2099]

Here is a quote from his review:

"Splatterhouse is the kind of simplistic, repetitive beat-'em-up that you'll play for about 15 minutes before moving on to something else. "


Um, yeah.... Right. Obviously, this dude never owned a TG-16 back in the day.

... Nor does he appear to understand the difference between a "beat-'em-up' and a conventional side-scrolling action game. And even if the first Splatterhouse could be accurately classified as the former, the difference would be crucial; all beat-'em-ups, by their very nature, are repetitive.