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

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.

Well, clearly not. I literally just said that I didn't

I really don't see why that's strange anyway. If a game was enjoyable one time but isn't any more then I don't think it deserves to be rated very highly at all. All of my favourite older games I've replayed and still enjoyed, and if I haven't I've altered my ratings for them. eg. last year I replayed GTA 3/VC/SA/4 and had to give a lot more credit to 4 than I used to since it's held up very well while San Andreas (and before), just weren't as good as I remembered them.

And yes I would say Sunshine should be rated higer, I've never actually played either. But one is a 2d platformer and I think 2d platformers are absolute shite so I'd easily rate the 3d platformer higher.

No, you absolutely don't "have" to take graphics into account. If you want to, fine. But to me they mean little compared to gameplay/story. Some of my favourite games of all time are even text sims. Good graphics don't make a good game.

No man that really does not make sense at all.

By that logic, the rating of most games would have to be lowered more and more as time passes by.

Last edited by BeardedDragon - on 25 March 2018