Anyone think the Dreamcast is over-rated now?

[MikeRox]

spemanig said:

AlfredoTurkey said:

Sorry, but you're dead wrong here. You're looking at things in a vacuum. Mario 64 would indeed be trash if released today. The same goes for just about any game that's not a 2-d side scroller and/or not Pac-Man. 

Sonic Adventure blew minds back when it came out and was the cream of the crop. You can only judge games based on the time when they came out and when that game launched, there was nothing close. 

No, I'm not. SA2 released in 2001. An improved GCN version released in 2002. SA2 is regarded as the better SA game. Dreamcast version? 89. GCN version released only 8 months later? 73. SA DX, again an improved GCN port released shortly after the original? 57.

You're not proving your point here. Firstly, I'd ask where you got your meta scores from, as reviews were primarily magazine based back in 2001 (more so in 1998 when SA1 first launched) and metacritic certainly has nowhere near the breadth of reviews that were actually made for the games.

Secondly, the GC ports may have had extra content, but particularly in the case of SA:DX was a much inferior version of the game. Frame rate instead of being locked, was erratic, which led to bigger control issues. Also introduced a lot of additional bugs/glitches which weren't in the original.

Also, as you say, ported later, charged full MSRP for the games again though.

Sleeping Dogs had an improved port with all DLC to PS4/XB1, yet that scored less than the original did both on PS3 and 360 even though it had a lower MSRP than the original release.

The Wind Waker HD went from 96 on GC to 90 on Wii U despite being the better version of the game (because they took all the "bad" parts out).

It's perfectly natural from review scores to decline with time even when the re-release is clearly a noticable improvement. I don't know why you'd expect adding extra bugs, having inferior audio and an irratic frame rate as the SA port to GCN had not to lower the review score.