Topic: How Should Re-releases of Games Be Reviewed?

Title says all. With Wind Waker HD reviews coming in, now's as good a time as any to ask the question. Should they be reviewed based on how well the games holds up? Should they be reviewed based on what's added? Should they even get reviews in the first place? Should there be a consistent way of reviewing these game on certain sites? Should there be multiple reviews on a single site to show the different ways of looking at the game?

Feel free to discuss.

I think it should be based on a combination of how it holds up, what's been added to the game, and whether or not said content really adds to the game or not. To me, it seems silly to give a game the highest score possible if it's just a straight port of an old game (VC/Classics aside).

they should just review what changed from the original game.like with WWHD they should only rate the graphics and new features.

I think they should be reviewed under the same scrutiny as any other present day release. I don't believe in giving out marks for nostalgia. The fact that a game was amazing 10 or 20 years ago is irrelevant. If a game hasn't aged well, I see no reason to play it.

For example, having never owned a NES, I'm not looking through rose-tinted glasses when I play VC games in 2013. Frankly, I find a lot of "classic" NES games close to unplayable. Sorry, but the original Legend of Zelda and Metroid games are just not very good anymore. They pretty much blow chunks.

I mostly agree with you, except that last part. As fustrating as they can be, they are far from unplayable, and in fact can be more enjoyable now than back then thanks to having access to online maps. In fact, the original Legend of Zelda is the only Zelda game I'll play anymore. I don't even look at a map anymore, it's just plain fun and satisfying to explore and memorize the entire layout of the world. And honestly, that's the thing with old games, they were a test of your memory and reflexes. Not like games nowadays, where they don't trust you to have basic skills to move the characters without at least 3 separate tutorials. Modern games are meant to be played once and only once. The Legend of Zelda on the NES only gets more fun the more times you play through it.

Man thats how I totally feel about modern games. I mean even as great as the game is like Assassin's Creed III or Arkham City I can only play it once through. Now a game like Super Metroid or Earthbound or the Mega Man games I can play over and over. In fact its funny cause before this gen I never considered trading in my games because I would more than likely play them again. This gen however I have traded in so many games cause I know I wont play them again.

Replayability is king! This is my video game philosophy - both for playing and making games.

Thats a good philosophy, I am going to have to remember that one lol.

carefully

@CanisWolfred
Perhaps "unplayable" may have been a bit of an exaggeration on my part. I've actually beaten Metroid and progressed a near-respectable amount in Legend of Zelda before writing it off (admittedly I didn't try playing with a map). I can understand that they still have appeal to a certain type of audience. I'm just not part of that audience I suppose. I wouldn't say it has anything to do with difficulty. I've put countless hours into punishing games like Super Meat Boy and F-Zero GX. I think it has to do more with patience and the fact that I lose interest when I feel I'm not progressing much. I'm almost positive Metroid has actual dead ends amidst its maze of repetitive corridors. Finally getting past a string of rooms only to find out that you wasted the last hour of your life on a wild goose chase is downright frustrating.

All games should be reviewed by gamers, that's the only hard rule. However, only fans should review the re-releases and only as "does it hold up to the porting/conversions?" Take Myst, a person who never played Myst may think the game itself lacking, while missing the entire reason the port to the 3DS sucked, the controls are horrible for the 3DS version. But the game is still as great as it was when it was first released, nothing has changed, and comparing it to more modern ones is going to be inaccurate. To find out how good the game itself is, just search for the original reviews at the time it was first released, you can only really compare a game to those released in the same era, for the same platforms, otherwise you're not reviewing the game itself.

• Does it hold up to modern standards
• Do new features add anything significant, and if not, does that really matter

Huge flaw, no remake or port will ever "hold up to modern standards," that's ignoring the fact that "standards" for video games are completely subjective. Which was my point, you cannot compare a classic, like say the first Megaman, to modern games, they are two different eras, and too many changes to Megaman would make it no longer a classic. Actually, the best video game reviewer I had ever seen compares the classic games to modern sequels directly, and makes a lot of good points. The most common point he made was how the older 8-bit graphics may not have a lot of colors, but you can tell game elements apart much better because of it. You know what's solid, what's not, what's an enemy, and what's scenery, all because the colors contrasted more. Sure, they lack realism, but a lot of fans don't care about that, they just want a good, and fun, game.

I don't think there's a right or wrong way, but I do think the review should make it clear by what standards they are holding it to. It's the same as the debate last week about wether price should be taken into account when reviewing a game. There are great arguments for both sides, and I don't mind either way as long as I'm told wether or not the reviewer took it into consideration.

What are you talking about?

First off, I'm not the first one here to say they should be reviewed with modern standards in mind (so I'm not sure why you targeted me).

Secondly, why not compare classic games to their modern counterparts? Just because times change, doesn't mean that certain classic games still don't hold up (and yeah, if others do have archaic elements that hinder gameplay, they should be called out on them).

I honestly don't get where you're going with the whole 8-bit talk. I never said anything about 8-bit graphics holding classic games back from attaining modern standards (in fact, many modern games, like VVVVVV & Mutant Mudds, utilize 8-bit art styles).

They should mostly be rated like modern games... with one exception.

Originality. They should rate the originality/creativity of a plot point or game mechanic as it was when the game was released. I don't think it's fair to punish a game for future games taking its ideas and ripping it off.

^What if those ideas were done way better in other games, though? Do you really think Phantasy Star III should be praised for it's marraige/multi-generational story when it barely used it to any good effect, while Dragon Quest V took the idea and utilized it in a much better fashion?