Were Past Reviews More Accurate?

[Phillyman]

Who reviewed games more accurately, the video game magazines that were present back when the game launched, or someone who played the game today? Can anyone today that plays a retro/classic game, give that game a fair review? Can you really give Doom for the PC a fair review, if you have played Halo 5 before hand? Or are reviews of classic games that are published today, tainted by the known history of a game? Would anyone really say "Super Mario Bros. 3" sucked, knowing that any Top X NES Games has it in the Top 3....if not the top spot.

Discuss!

[kitsunebi]

Who reviewed games more accurately, the video game magazines that were present back when the game launched, or someone who played the game today?

It's all contextual. The original review presents an impression of the game within the context of the gaming industry up to that point in time. The retro review has the benefit of hindsight - being able to better appreciate where a game fits within the greater narrative of game design and how it may have influenced games that came afterward. Both should be accurate to the time they were written, but not vice versa. Not all games with great reviews from 20 years ago are still going to be entertaining to a current reviewer when taken out of the historical context of their original release date. Most retro reviews take this into consideration (no one is going to slam an older game for looking more primitive than a modern game, for example), although there is a danger that nostalgia will unfairly influence a modern reviewer's opinions.

I like reading both types of reviews, keeping in mind the context in which they were written.

[Sean697]

There are some people who do retro reviews good and others who don't. I think mags did a great job back in the day. Especially EGM when you had 4 opinions. I really hate the trend of bashing older games that were critically acclaimed and cherry picking your favorites to stand the test of time. Sometimes there are games that people just didn't understand at the time. Like the recently scanned EGM 10 didn't give Herzog Zwei on the Genesis glowing reviews. Yet over time as people understood RTS games it's kind of a classic. Really the first in the genre. I hated it initially too not understanding it. But once I learned to play it, it's on of my favorite Genesis games. I tend to trust magazine reviews a little more.

Another instance that irked me this year is Retro magazine did on review on their website trashing Thunderforce 3. They even had the nerve to talk shit about its music. (Music that is fucking fantastic). I was like who the hell trashes Thunderforce 3? That game was amazing. It was even ported to the SNES. I replied on Twitter on how horrible a review it was. Within a day the review was taken down. Which I thought was odd. But apparently someone over there agreed.

[Sean697]

A good site I'm reading right now is Segadoes.com. The guy previously reviewed every US NES game. He is now reviewing chronologically every game on every Sega console. He does a good job giving retro games a fair shake. I think he calls out stinkers as he sees them and praises games that hold up well regardless of how they look. And doesn't denigrate games for outdated mechanics. As long as it makes sense within the limitations of the hardware and timeframe.

[twiztor]

i wouldn't say older reviews are "more accurate", but maybe "more honest". as stated, nostalgia and hindsight both taint the overall view of a game, for better or worse.

if you grew up hearing about how amazing Altered Beast for the Sega Genesis was, and then played it and felt underwhelmed, you'd probably rate it a bit lower since it didn't live up to your expectations.

Likewise, if you've never played Ducktales for the NES and never really heard anybody mention it, you might rate it super high when you reviewed it, thinking you discovered some lost classic.

both reviews have their place, and no reviewer is "right" 100% of the time because it's all subjective.

[MisterXiado]

Look up the famous Amiga Power article on the subject. Evermore, publishers cater to the loudest whiners, since Facebook has taken the place of the video game magazine as the crowd to please under pain of bankrupsy. Buying reviews is more blatant than ever, but the Social Network scum will tell you that wanting ethics in gaming journalism means you hate women or some other idiotic malarky.

[te72]

I say that a solid game holds up today, even by modern standards. If a game was great, it will have set the standard for the genre, and reviews will often glow, then and now. Some examples:

-FPS controls, pre- and post- Call of Duty Modern Warfare. I loved Half-Life, and HL2 was great too. But trying to play them on console was a bit rough after playing CODMW.

-Tomba. Might not have sold as well as it should have, but it is still a fantastic game. Love it now every bit as much as I did when I first played it uh.. 18 years ago?

-Doom, as mentioned by Philliyman. Still holds up. Set the tone for horror in shooters, music, atmosphere, sound effects, for many games to come. I still play it and enjoy it immensely every now and then. Halo 5 is prettier, obviously, but I'd rather play Doom.

-Worms. Silly concept, but still probably my favorite multiplayer game of all time. This is one of those games that nailed it on the controls.

-Resident Evil: Voice acting aside, this game is still creepy to this day. Atmosphere by the boat load...

See to me, a game has to have one of two things, preferably both. Solid controls, and atmosphere. If a game has both, it is likely a classic, and a review will reflect that no matter the time period. Some examples:

Control - SMB3, SFII, Doom, COD:MW, Gran Turismo, Forza, DKC, Tekken

Atmosphere - Resident Evil, MGS, Suikoden, FF7, Silent Hill, Chrono Trigger

[Kain]

Who reviewed games more accurately, the video game magazines that were present back when the game launched, or someone who played the game today? Can anyone today that plays a retro/classic game, give that game a fair review? Can you really give Doom for the PC a fair review, if you have played Halo 5 before hand? Or are reviews of classic games that are published today, tainted by the known history of a game? Would anyone really say "Super Mario Bros. 3" sucked, knowing that any Top X NES Games has it in the Top 3....if not the top spot.

Discuss!

I will give the magazine publishers benefit of the doubt when it came to reviews back in the day, they did do a amazing job and tried to be fair and honest in their reviews, at the same time there is no denying that there was sometimes bias towards one version of the game compared to another on another console. Someone who played the game today will more than likely compare it right away to the same version on another console and indicate the differences rather than review the game itself. To me that is one of the biggest differences i found out in the last decade is that more and more folks are discussing the differences rather than reviewing the game itself. Not saying it's everyone but a nice portion of the today's gamer is.

Giving a fair review while playing a classic? Possibly yes but more than likely they won't. One of the main parts is restarting from scratch should you lose a life and not a lot of check points/saving(then again depends on the system and the game). Graphics is another one, sure the older games were the works of their time, and graphically pushed the limits in their day but doesn't hold up today compared to what we have. Once again it's not reviewing the game, the characters, the plot, setting, the soundtrack and so forth but rather comparing it to today's standards. And that is the issue. I can like may people who enjoy and love classics can play Castlevania, then go and play Art Of Fighting, and then switch it up and play Amped 2. Those games were fun. And i would put Amped 2 on my list of best games of all time because i had so much fun playing it, loved the soundtrack, the mountains, the goals, the presentation just a fun snowboarding game and overall just a fun game period. I play it a few times a year, also the original Amped. If you talk about the game for what it is and how it plays, how the characters are and so forth you will come across a great piece of work, but if you talk about what it doesn't have then you will not be talking about the game and will miss a great piece of work. GTA III for example, when it came out and to this day a masterpiece. But you can't swim, so you go in the water and you're done. Compare it to San Andreas where you can swim and other games since. it makes GTA III look stupid in that regard and a bad game, right?

[te72]

I like your example of GTA 3, Kain. I would say that early 3d gaming doesn't always hold up as well as 2d games tend to, if only because the greater amount of resources a system required just to do the 3d. GTA3 is still a solid game, I still prefer the world over the PS2 era sequels.

Some games will always stand out though. Symphony of the Night is still regarded as one of the greatest PS1 games, let alone Castlevania games. On that note, I think what a modern reviewer has to contend with versus an original reviewer, is a game's reputation. Back in 1997, you had NO idea how good the game was gonna be. Sure, it was in a solid franchise, but so was Castlevania 64... Anyway, my point being is that when you go in blind, your opinions are more honest and less likely to have been influenced by outside factors. This is hard to do in the modern age of the internet.