By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Ka-pi96 said:
BeardedDragon said:

Those shoddy design decisions you call them might be shoddy compared to later games. But at it's time it was the best you could do. And this is the whole point I came up with in the beginning which you clearly don't seem to understand. You have to rate a game at the time it comes out. Can you name me a game that had for example better graphics than OoT when it came out?

Why? People don't claim games are "the best as of that time" they claim them to be "the best of all time". If people are claiming something to be the best "of all time" then it really should be able to hold up favourably compared to more recent games as well. I've never got why people insist on giving credit for doing something first. IMO doing something better is much more important than doing it first.

That said, I personally wouldn't really rate a game down for it's graphics unless they really are atrocious anyway, so on the graphical side at least I don't think it should matter anyway whether it's outdated or not.

LOL so you would also compare the gameplay of Super Mario Bros to that of Super Mario Sushine and then say Sunshine should be rated better because the controls are more precise? This does not make sense at all.

Of course you have to rate a game at the time it is released, that is why everyone does this.

And of course you have to take graphics into account when rating a game. Some games, like Crysis for example get most of their appeal by good graphics.