Nintendo World Report Forums

Gaming Forums => Nintendo Gaming => Topic started by: GanonSlayer on February 18, 2003, 02:00:25 PM

Title: How are you supposed to rate a port of an old game?
Post by: GanonSlayer on February 18, 2003, 02:00:25 PM: It seems like many of the old titles being ported to the Cube are getting low scores because of age. Resident Evil 2 & 3, SoAL and Zelda: OoT just to name a few. Are the reviewers rating the game on the enjoyment factor or just saying, "We have already played it so lets give it a 4.9."? So my main question is, how is someone supposed to go about reviewing an old title? I think they should keep the old scores of their games and maybe subtract a little for outdated graphics and sound because a great game will always be great and graphics don't make a game.
Title: How are you supposed to rate a port of an old game?
Post by: mouse_clicker on February 18, 2003, 02:08:07 PM: I think they're rating the additions the developer made to the game to make it stand apart from the original. Really they shouldn't, though- the reviews are for people who have enver even played the original game and they should be getting honest reviews for the game as a whole, not just the upgrades. The people who had the originals don't need a review targetted at them for a game they've already played.
Title: How are you supposed to rate a port of an old game?
Post by: dalmation10k on February 18, 2003, 02:16:32 PM: "How are you supposed to rate a port of an old game?"

in it's own right.

well that's how I'd do it anyway.

The gaming bar is always being raised. When you rate a game you are comparing it to other games, games that have set the standard.
I wouldn't take points off a games score, simply because it has been on another console earlier. I would simply give it a score that compares it to other games on the console.
Title: How are you supposed to rate a port of an old game?
Post by: ShockingAlberto on February 18, 2003, 02:25:54 PM: Zelda's really not that old. Well, maybe five years doesn't seem that long when you play the game twice a year. Besides, it has enough new stuff to be reviewed again. Maybe the reviewers just got frustrated.

-- ShockingAlberto
Title: How are you supposed to rate a port of an old game?
Post by: RickPowers on February 18, 2003, 02:27:10 PM: Resident Evil 2 and Nemesis are getting low scores because compared to games released TODAY, and built for TODAY's hardware, they are not very good games. The graphics, sound, and gameplay mechanics are all very dated. Yes, the storyline is still decent, and that's probably why they are getting even AVERAGE scores.
Title: How are you supposed to rate a port of an old game?
Post by: Icons by Size on February 18, 2003, 04:53:20 PM: yeah and you have to pay, what, $40 for those. the zelda thing was free with pre-order so that was 100% great.
Title: How are you supposed to rate a port of an old game?
Post by: Sean on February 18, 2003, 04:56:14 PM: This is where numbers stop mattering and the review itself matters. A good review would reflect the given site's mandatory marking rules--but the WORDS of the review would explain it! Let's say someone gives Skies of Arcadia a technical marking of 5, but the review goes on to say that underneat the dated veneer lies a terrific, must-play game. Now you know that it doesn't take advantage of the system, but it's a killer game. Then you, the gamer, can take into account the price, the availability of the old game, and make your decision. What say you all?
Title: How are you supposed to rate a port of an old game?
Post by: MorningStar on February 18, 2003, 04:56:40 PM: $40 is such a ripoff for RE2 and RE3...I was going to buy them thinking they were $20 at release but not anymore. I guess I'll just wait a few months until they are at least around $25-$30.
Title: How are you supposed to rate a port of an old game?
Post by: Darc Requiem on February 18, 2003, 10:35:51 PM: Capcom should have bundled RE2 and 3 together and sold them for $40 or even $50 with both of them in the same package either price would have been a deal. Selling them for $40 a piece isnt wise. I understand that Nintendo had something to do with it, but that would have been the sensible way around it. Also OoTshouldn't be held to the same standard as RE2 and 3....as Icons by Size just stated, it was free with the new Zelda....you didn't have to pay $40 for it.

Darc Requiem
Title: How are you supposed to rate a port of an old game?
Post by: PIAC on February 18, 2003, 11:18:02 PM: Quote
Originally posted by: ShockingAlberto
Zelda's really not that old. Well, maybe five years doesn't seem that long when you play the game twice a year. Besides, it has enough new stuff to be reviewed again. Maybe the reviewers just got frustrated.

-- ShockingAlberto

twice a year? i dare say i played OoT quite a few times more than that, so did pretty much everyone i knew that owned the game
Title: How are you supposed to rate a port of an old game?
Post by: Ian Sane on February 19, 2003, 07:42:32 AM: I think when rating a port there are a lot of factors to take into consideration.

1. How well has the game held up over time? If the game is something like PSO you could probably rate it as if it's a new game because aside from the graphics it's on par with current games. If the Dreamcast was still being supported it would be current game. Something like RE2 or Ocarina of Time is different because they come from previous generations so a lot more elements of their design is dated.

2. How much of a value is it to buy the port? Ocarina of Time is a f*cking free so it's rating is going to be higher. The Gamecube version is CHEAPER than used copies of the N64 version. RE2 & 3 can be bought used on the Dreamcast for like $10. You could probably buy a Dreamcast and both those games for the price of buying both of them on Gamecube. Sonic Mega Collection is a great deal because you get 7 games. If they sold Sonic the Hedgehog by itself on the Gamecube it would get incredibly low scores.

3. How accessible is the old version/how many people have likely played the old version? Skies of Arcadia Legends is a worthwhile port because not that many people played it on the Dreamcast. Super Mario World is not quite as good of a port because everybody has played that game. A Link to the Past is a good port because finding used SNES copies of it can be pretty difficult and sometimes expensive. Super Mario Advance isn't so hot because used copies of Super Mario Bros 2 and Super Mario All Stars are quite easy to find cheap.

4. What new stuff has been added for those who have played it already? The Zelda bonus disc wouldn't be so great if it didn't come with the Master Quest for people who have played the original version to death. Stuff like adding the Four Swords to A Link to the Past entices people who own the SNES version to buy the game just for the new content. Skies of Arcadia Legends adds new content to make the game look more up-to-date. Resident Evil was completely redone so that it's like a brand new game. RE2 & 3 don't add any new content and are considered as weaker ports.

So if you weigh each of these four categories equally RE 2 & 3 get a f*cking ZERO in three of those categories as they have no new content and can be easily found on other consoles for a cheaper price. That means at most they can only get 25/100. That's why they get such low scores.

According to GameRankings the Gamecube version of Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time has an average score of 88% which is fantastic for a game that aside from some remixed dungeons is identicle to the N64 version.