But the  main reason they don't give it a 10 is because some of the graphics could have been re-done better! They did not do any tweeks to the music (although I believe it comes with the soundtrack?). IGN...it was a 10 back in 1998, now it is better, but you reduced the score? What else am I missing people, other than it is basically the same game on a new system. Remember some people have not seen it. You wouldn't give Star Wars a A- just because it was re-release with new scenes would you? Let's have a 17 year old who did not play the original rate this game and see what happens.

http://ds.ign.com/articles/117/1177020p1.html

ugh lets go kill IGN lol jk

Lol, wasn't trying to start a riot. It's no big deal, but still.

Fair score.

I'm a big proponent of the idea that a 10 in 1998 wouldn't necessarily be a 10 in 2011.  Gaming has changed and evolved since then and standards have moved forward.  Similar to how a late port usually gets a lower metacritic score even if it's only a few months old it seems that the remake didn't improve enough to make up the difference that 13 years has made to industry standards.  I'd have to play it myself to see if I agree.

Eh, 9.5 is a great score! >_> Remember that a lot has happened in the world of gaming since 1998.

Fair.

This remake is the best game of 2011

After seeing resident evil I think it's far complain about the graphic

Doesn't bother me. A port is by nature unoriginal, and so has lower qualifications. Though i agree in an apples-to-apples way it compares favorably to what you could find at a garage sale for the N64 or buy right off VC, but it's just not an original game