By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - IGN..Zombi U/Zombi WTF

Samus Aran on 21 August 2015
KingdomHeartsFan said:

Games should be reviewed based on their story, graphics, gameplay, etc.  Not based on the differences between other versions of the game.  Reviews have always been used to access the quality of a game.

Then what's the point of reviewing remasters? Just use the original review then and add a note with what changed in the remasters.

Ok, the graphics of Shovel Knight, Fez and Bastion suck compared to other PS4 (or PS3 even) games.

Games get reviewed on originality as well, remasters are the opposite of that. Something that was fresh and unique ten years ago likely won't be now anymore.

Unless remasters fix fundamental issues with the game they should ALWAYS get lower scores.



Around the Network
HoloDust on 21 August 2015
Samus Aran said:
HoloDust said:
Maybe it's the price on these new release - I find it fairly enjoyable for what it's sold at Steam, but I'd never even consider it at $60.

Anyway, 7.5 seems about right, given all the flaws.

I didn't see reviewers take the cheaper price of DKC: TF or Splatoon into account.


Uhm, not sure what you're saying...have DKC:TF or Splatoon been released on some other platform with higer price prior to Wii U launch, or on some other platform with lower price afterwards?

As I was saying, maybe this particular reviewer feels like the overall value of this $20 port is higher than $60 Wii U version...than again maybe he's not taking price into account, and considering it's another reviewer, maybe he just like it more than guy who originaly reviewed it.



Wyrdness on 21 August 2015
KingdomHeartsFan said:

Games should be reviewed based on their story, graphics, gameplay, etc.  Not based on the differences between other versions of the game.  Reviews have always been used to access the quality of a game.


The PS3 version of Bayonetta says hi, differences in version also impact quality as this gem highlighted.



Samus Aran on 21 August 2015
HoloDust said:
Samus Aran said:
HoloDust said:
Maybe it's the price on these new release - I find it fairly enjoyable for what it's sold at Steam, but I'd never even consider it at $60.

Anyway, 7.5 seems about right, given all the flaws.

I didn't see reviewers take the cheaper price of DKC: TF or Splatoon into account.


Uhm, not sure what you're saying...have DKC:TF or Splatoon been released on some other platform with higer price prior to Wii U launch, or on some other platform with lower price afterwards?

As I was saying, maybe this particular reviewer feels like the overall value of this $20 port is higher than $60 Wii U version...than again maybe he's not taking price into account, and considering it's another reviewer, maybe he just like it more than guy who originaly reviewed it.

Those games were cheaper than normal retail games, but some critics gave them flack because there wasn't enough content (not even true anyway). I rarely see reviewers take the price into consideration in reviews. That's what I'm saying.



KingdomHeartsFan on 21 August 2015
Samus Aran said:
KingdomHeartsFan said:
 

Games should be reviewed based on their story, graphics, gameplay, etc.  Not based on the differences between other versions of the game.  Reviews have always been used to access the quality of a game.

Then what's the point of reviewing remasters? Just use the original review then and add a note with what changed in the remasters.

Ok, the graphics of Shovel Knight, Fez and Bastion suck compared to other PS4 (or PS3 even) games.

Games get reviewed on originality as well, remasters are the opposite of that. Something that was fresh and unique ten years ago likely won't be now anymore.

Unless remasters fix fundamental issues with the game they should ALWAYS get lower scores.

Gaming standards don't stay the same, the goal post constantly shifts.  I could keep going but its obvious this isn't going anywhere so I'll agree to disagree.



Around the Network
Normchacho on 21 August 2015
Samus Aran said:
KingdomHeartsFan said:
Samus Aran said:
KingdomHeartsFan said:
Samus Aran said:

 

Remasters should be reviewed as remasters, not original games. GoW 3: R got a lower score than the original and with good reason. Sadly most indie games get ridiculously high scores for what they are. Let's be honest here, Shovel Knight is not a 91% game at all. It's not even in my top 5 platformers on the Wii U.

What? Shovel Knight is great, you do realize that your opinion isn't the end all be all on whether a game is good right?

 

If I can spend $20 on a game and get a great experience out of it, why shouldn't that game get a great score just because it didn't cost me $60 or have a 100 million dollar budget?



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

Samus Aran on 21 August 2015
KingdomHeartsFan said:
Samus Aran said:
KingdomHeartsFan said:
 

Games should be reviewed based on their story, graphics, gameplay, etc.  Not based on the differences between other versions of the game.  Reviews have always been used to access the quality of a game.

Then what's the point of reviewing remasters? Just use the original review then and add a note with what changed in the remasters.

Ok, the graphics of Shovel Knight, Fez and Bastion suck compared to other PS4 (or PS3 even) games.

Games get reviewed on originality as well, remasters are the opposite of that. Something that was fresh and unique ten years ago likely won't be now anymore.

Unless remasters fix fundamental issues with the game they should ALWAYS get lower scores.

Gaming standards don't stay the same, the goal post constantly shifts.  I could keep going but its obvious this isn't going anywhere so I'll agree to disagree.

Which is why they should receive lower scores. As technology improves, so should our standards.



KingdomHeartsFan on 21 August 2015
Wyrdness said:
KingdomHeartsFan said:

Games should be reviewed based on their story, graphics, gameplay, etc.  Not based on the differences between other versions of the game.  Reviews have always been used to access the quality of a game.


The PS3 version of Bayonetta says hi, differences in version also impact quality as this gem highlighted.

Ya they could, I never said they couldn't.  I was saying a game shouldn't lose points because its similar to another version of the game.



Samus Aran on 21 August 2015
Normchacho said:
 

What? Shovel Knight is great, you do realize that your opinion isn't the end all be all on whether a game is good right?

 

If I can spend $20 on a game and get a great experience out of it, why shouldn't that game get a great score just because it didn't cost me $60 or have a 100 million dollar budget?

Shovel Knight isn't even worth that $20 as it's incredibly short. I didn't say it was bad, but in no way is this a masterpiece. It's a rather uninspired game that banks heavily on nostalgia.



Samus Aran on 21 August 2015
the-pi-guy said:
Samus Aran said:

Which is why they should receive lower scores. As technology improves, so should our standards.

Not necessarily.  

Enjoyment of a game is a subjective experience.  So it changes depending on the person.  Not entirely mapped to changes in technology, but mapped to an individual.  

Nostalgia is something reviewers should try to ignore in their reviews.

I'm curious, have you ever played a remaster where you had more fun than with the original (and played the original first of course)? And why?