DMeisterJ said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:
Kasz216 said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:
Kasz216 said:
It is sloppy editing. What can you do though. Judges have different standards.
After all the PS2 version got an 89. How do you have a port of a game with stuff added that all works and it ends up with a lower score? |
When it originally came out over a year ago? |
See I don't agree with that. After all many people still consider the Ocarina of Time the best game ever.
If a game really has such shallow apeal that it's rating would drop so low do to nothing but graphical enhancements then you've got to question the original review score in the first place. |
Standards change, the bar gets raised. Alot happens in a year. Ocarina is far from a 10/10 by todays standards. |
Quoted for mother-flippin truth. You can't give a game a 10/10, then ten years later, it still deserves a ten out of ten. That means we as a group haven't moved forward. That is why I love IGN. They never give 10/10. They may give 9.7, but not tens. Because once you give a ten, that means that gaming has reached it's pinnacle. |
Well the virtual console proved to me that 10 year old games which were perfect 10s back then are still perfect 10s today. Sure Mario's hands in Mario 64 look more like huge cubes than hands but the game is still incredibly fun the same way it was when I first got it.
