Topic: Retro Review's ... are new scores necessary?

I'd first like to empathise just how very well written I found the recent N64 Turok review... it layed out the history of its development, the public reception at the time, a snippet of the games story and how it compares by todays standards amongst other points. The review itself was very comprehensive and I enjoyed the retrospect to the extent where I then looked up afew classic moments on youtube. Great stuff.

However, I failed to see the point in re-reviewing older software and slapping a (inevitable in this case for the fast aging 1st person genre) very average scores solely based on how it compares by todays standards.

We have an average Metacritic score at the bottom of reviews for more recent classics, which serves as a good indication of how a game was originally perceived at launch, do we really need a modern day review score? I dare say that many of these older games are unlikely to be re-released on VC (at least not in their current form) and if they are... would probably only be picked up by the nostalgia trippers or those wanting to sample a piece of gaming history. So a score wouldnt really contribute towards a purchasing decision.

So why tarnish the gloss off the old memories with a numerical score? If a review does the job explaining its pro's and con's by todays standards then marvelous, but I would suggest leaving it at that.

Your thoughts would be very welcome.

Many times have I bought games on the virtual console service not for nostalgia, nor historical value, but because they appear to be fun. The NL reviews mostly do a fine job bringing a classic up to modern review standards, and I see no problem in that.

@Andayv01 The point of a review score is to sum up the feelings of a reviewer (who has played many games) towards a game in a concise way that is easy to understand for the reader. Considering how standards change over time, I think it's important to re-review titles to ensure where they stand by the standards of today, especially when they are made new to a different audience with a different price.

When it comes to games that aren't re-released... eh, you don't have to read them. Surely one person who has never heard of the game will look at it? I know I did that for Uphoria, and when that came to the VC years after its Euro counterpart, I jumped on it.

My two cents, anyway. I see where you're coming from, though.

I don't think so. My opinion about games I used to own didn't change when I played them again years later. Except for being better at the game now and knowing all the secrets and such. I never liked using the word "dated". The game didn't change at all between the years. Then there's also people who might have never played a game before, and they jump into this one randomly. I don't let other games or experiences influence a review. I judge it solely on the game I am playing and only the game itself. For example, for Super Mario Kart I wouldn't mention anything about F-Zero or Mario Kart 64. There's too many variables to consider about someone who might want to play it. They just want to see if someone else enjoyed it or not. I'm not trying to sell someone anything.

I like scores personally, it's like a quick summary of the reviewers thoughts.

Yeah, most older games would score lower nowadays, so I don't see the point. If I was exposed to the original Goldeneye for the first time today, It would be extremely lucky to score a 5. Nostalgia fogs the senses.

I just find it strange how the same game can be scored differently.

For example:
https://www.nintendolife.com/reviews/vc/kirbys_dream_land_3_snes
https://www.nintendolife.com/reviews/wiiu-eshop/kirbys_dream_l...

Yes, because as someone who hasn't played many of these old games before, I want them graded on the modern scale, not the scale they used when it first came out. Since I feel no nostalgia for games like Super Mario Bros. it's nice to see a review I can trust to give me a fair rating of the game. These reviews do not "tarnish the gloss" they simply remove (or try to at least) the nostalgia goggles from peoples eyes.

To a new gamer generation who is testing the waters through Virtual Console like services, yes. To people who are hardcore gamers from the past, they can be an interesting read to see how games have held up.

You find it strange different reviewers scored the same game differently?

What, you don't agree with my scores???

Thanks to you all for your input.

It looks to me as if the longevity of a game depends (amongst many other things) on its genre,
A 1st person shooter like Turok or Goldeneye by todays standards would indeed score lower, whilst a shmup like 1992 Recca may continue to garner high review scores perhaps due to the limitations of possible change in its genre. It essentially hits the pinnacle of its genre?

Does this mean that the more simplistic "arcade" games are going to outlast in popularity todays enormous budget triple AAA titles 10 years down the line? the less evolutionary or expandable the game type, the higher the retro score?

Tetris anyone?

I would find it strange if two different reviewers scored the same game identically every time, to be honest!

Back on topic though, I think that it's very tough ground to walk on. Do you score the game based on the current day levels of quality, or do you score it based on when the game was released? I would be liable to say that I would rather not see scores at all on retro reviews, but when you're talking about downloadable games that are essentially new releases, scores are somewhat required. It helps people who don't want to take the time to read the review to quickly see if the game is a value proposition or not.

Readers of straight retro reviews (N64 titles that haven't been re-released digitally, for example) are more likely to digest the text, I think.

I don't see why this would bother anyone. If anything, you can get multiple reviews from different reviewers to get a better idea of how good a game is.

Even little changes like portability, screen size, restore points and Miiverse intergration can make an old game more or less fun, the system in which you're playing them matters! and you need to be "gentle" with them because they're not released to compete with modern games but at the same time you need to avoid wearing nostalgia googles and be direct when pointing their flaws.

I really appreciate the rereviews of these older games and find the scores to be quite fascinating.

Not all games age equally. The reviews let you know if the game is worthy today.

The number is pointless, they are needed to appear in Metacritic and Gamerankings but they don't add anything beyond rants and faps.

That is why Famitsu scores are better. (4 reviewers / 4 scores).

Ideal thing is for a publication to review in a somewhat consistent manner.

(Then all you need to do is find one that you agree with. Not possible these days for me).

Some people live on random people applying a number to a game. Cant possibly take that away from them - then they'd have to read the reviews!

That's a good question! I dunno but reviewing retro games now should only be for the benefit of newer gamers.

Depends what the role of the sites are.

I think they behave more like an extension of the marketing department of the publisher. (At least the online only ones).

(You can guess correctly 9 times out of 10 what a review will get here by how many rumor stories and other pointless things are posted in the run up to it).