Ports have to be held to higher standards than original games, because they launch several years later, when more is expected of a game, and because really, there isn't going to be very much in a port that's new.

i'm in the exact opposite boat.  take away todays pretty graphics and see how they do

there have been soo many great games i have played this gen that have less than par graphics and they got horrible reviews and there have been even more shitty games that i have played that had amazing graphics and good scores.

It seems a game gets docked a bunch for its graphics in reviews, yet doesn't get docked for bugs or gliches.  They just go "hope an update fixes this later"  its like wtf

I don't view that as the opposite boat, I definitely agree that games should be docked for bugs and glitches and that's why I prefer a score like ours for something like Fallout 3 over most review sites' scores.  Any game where I have to restart multiple times for getting inexplicably stuck in rocks just shouldn't get that high of scores.  

But I don't think that a game with glitches like that should get terrible scores like a 6 because in the end those are minor moments of the game that mar an otherwise great experience.

Wo! Actually I think that the score is higher than expect (and I'm happy). It'n not a new experience like it was in 1998.

didn't they give ocarina of time a 10/10 for the virtual console on the wii when it came out.

wonder what happened that made the n64 a 10/10, the virtual console a 10/10 and the 3ds a 9.5/10. what did 3ds make crappier

or is the not completely updated track worth a .5 deduction?

well the textures are great but the models could have used a bit more polygons. it does not bother me though but it will of course effect the score so if the system can do better then what has been done in the game they can't give it a perfect 10 in graphics so that will effect the end score

so very good score!

I guess they review VC releases based on how they would have graded the original game at the time of release and not based on what's currently available at the time.  I would count that more as an incorrect way to review the VC release over incorrect for the 3DS.  

That's why we try to stay away from doing reviews for ports of old games released on VC or PSN, it's difficult to establish how to review it.  Either you have to review it based on current standards and it's going to get utterly crapped on in the graphics department or you try to remember all the way back to the standards for when it released which is dicey in itself.   

All those three versions were reviewed by different reviewers.

personally i think all vc and any remake shoudl be reviewed how it is NOW.

if i'm new to the gaming world and i see a game get a 10/10 woudl i not buy it?  then i play and its horrible, but OH it was awesome in 1990.  Take golden eye.  If it were released on vc with its 64 controls, it should NOT get a 10/10.  Doesn't matter if those controls were amazing in 1998, they suck now. 

there are some games i really enjoyed back in the day, but are unplayable now and actually suck.  Then there are games that have stood teh test of time and are just as great as they were back then.  such as basically any 2d side scrolling mario, or i believe ocarina of time is another.  final fantasy 8 and 4 i beleive as well. 

I would tend to agree, if you are going to review a VC game you should base it on standards and controls now.  But it just makes my life easier on our site to avoid the issue altogether ^^