Topic: Time for unified VC reviews, instead of separate 3DS/Wii U reviews?

I suggest that NL take under consideration only doing one VC review for a 3DS/Wii U release. It made more sense when we would see a new review for a Wii U game that had only been previously reviewed on WIi VC in 2007 or 2008, when site standards weren't what they are today. But now, Nintendo is releasing 3DS and Wii U releases simultaneously, and it's odd to see one review posted right after the next. Perhaps this means adding the possibility of a "sub-review" underneath the main one that addresses any flaws that are present in one version and not the other, such as lack of 2-player, or to only publish a second review when such factors are an issue. I love the writing here, and I think we'd see even more of it if reviewers weren't spending time reviewing the same game on two systems when they are basically identical. Nintendo seems to be headed toward unifying their handheld and console platform approaches, so it only makes sense that this happens here as well, right? Anyway, I know that changes like this take time and aren't so simple to implement, but I think it's worth doing. My two cents.

good idea! but I think the reviewers in NL don't do this because of(possible) different control sets and separated releases(for a few games)
ok the sub review idea is great! NL listen to this guy!

Thanks! But I don't think this is the reason... I think it's just an old way of doing things that applies to a lesser degree now than it did before. I don't think that control schemes could be so different as to affect review scores, and people shouldn't be reading reviews to learn control schemes anyway. If it really does make that big of a difference there's the sub-review idea. Or just an addendum, as only a big change, like lack of 2-player, would really lower the score on one system vs. the other.

@Zach Well, the WiiU VC lets you customize your controllers exactly like you want it, which can be a major plus. It also did away with regional differences, releasing the best version all across the board (60HTZ versions in Europe, the first time Contra 3 was released here instead of Probotector etc). The WiiU VC titles also offer Save States instead of just suspension saves, which come in handy at really hard games like Ghosts and Goblins for instance, making then infinitly more enjoyable for non hardcore gamers.
And then there is the output signal. The digital HD signal CAN in some cases lead to input lag, screan tearing etc.
Also, the WiiU VC version of Super Metroid had a glitch that wasnt present in the Wii VC version (Ghost Ship music doesnt play properly).
Sure, all of these are minor differences, but differences nonetheless. And i think that even a customizable controll scheme can upp the score.
For example: Youre used to play Super Mario World (Y = Run, B = Jump), now, every older game goes back to using B and A respectively. If you can map these buttons back to Y and B it can greatly increase the playability.
Sure, you could just review the game on its own and then add a smaller section covering the specific VC implementations. But other than that, there is a reason to rereview a game on the WiiU VC service.

Skykid Pretty much proved that some games need another look, so no.

I think this is the most logical way to do this. It's rare that differences are enough to cause a change in score, and when they do, well, there can be two scores. Can anyone name an example where there actually has been a different score for a Wii U VC game vs 3DS VC game?

I just think that the staff could better spend their time creating unique articles rather than two reviews that say almost identical things. And when they aren't identical, like I said, separate scores could happen in rare cases, and subsections addressing changes can happen in the vast majority. That would take a lot less time than the writing, editing and publication of an entirely new review. It would consolidate traffic and comments as well. And, like I said, it just looks weird to see two reviews published one after another for basically the same game.

If it's the same reviewer then I agree completely. If two different reviewers review each then its nice to see two different opinions.

Hmmm....I don't think that calls for a completely new review. Maybe a second opinion within the review?

I can see the point to having two reviews.

You have people who are only interested in one system. A 3DS owner doesn't or probably wont pay attention to an articled under the Wii U Review banner and doesn't want to wade through an article just to get to the 3DS pros and cons or vice versa.

It would be cool to only have one review, to make it a little more organized and to save time and effort. It is worth pointing out that Nintendo Life reviews all downloadable games, so they technically make more reviews than most sites.

The only way I saw that there were two recent reviews for SMB3 was the tagline, as they were so close together I thought it was the same one. Even the banner image was the same!

The biggest difference between systems would be the size screen and button configuration for Wii U (that you take for granted) and the fact that the 3DS is portable, and how well the game adjusts to short burst gaming.

What use would that be, though? I'd rather have a full review from a fresh set of eyes. Especially since the reviews now are way better than how they used to be.

Well, on the other hand you can have two reviewers for a better idea of what a game is like

I look at the reviews for EDGE and am grateful for separate console reviews.