By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Are the nintendo classic games so well rated, because we had lower standards back in the day?

AZWification said:

Yeah. Nowadays we have higher standards thanks to  amazing games like Shadowfall and Ryse!

How can we not compare the old Sonic to the allmighty Sonic 06?

not even fair to compare sonic 06 all day ery day



http://moongypsy.bandcamp.com/ ~Thank you Stefl1504 for the amazing sig~
Around the Network
toot1231 said:
AZWification said:

Yeah. Nowadays we have higher standards thanks to  amazing games like Shadowfall and Ryse!

How can we not compare the old Sonic to the allmighty Sonic 06?

not even fair to compare sonic 06 all day ery day

Sonic 06's almightiness stopped it from being working properly!



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

Uabit said:
Yes, because for example Bioshock in my opinion is better than any game made by nintendo and has "only" a 96 in metacritic (it should have 98 or 99 not 100 because perfection doesn't exist).


Bioshock Died with Burial at Sea Episode 2, so no.

OT: Good Games arel Good all the time, just because games nowaday got a bigger scope than the classics, doesn't mean they are better, just bigger, and that isn't always a good thing



hahahahahahahahaha!!!



LOL if anything modern games are rated easier. Look at GTAIV for example. Once the hype died most people would agree that the reviews were above what they should have been. Look at Ocarina of Time. That game just doesn't age.



 

 

Around the Network

Most of the triple A developers have Nintendo's games as their inspiration or consider them as the pinnacle of game design,so simply put no.



Nintendo classic games were higher rated because at the time they set new bars on what gamers could expect.

You really can't name side scrolling platformers, modern console FPS or 3rd person adventure games that haven't been influenced by a Nintendo product, And usually before one or more of these classics, certain games of lower quality were held to higher regard.



Some of them, but that's true of a lot of games from that time, not just Nintendo games. For instance, is it fair to criticize the original Tetris for not having online leaderboards?

But many classics are as good now as they were when first released. There's nothing wrong with A Link to the Past from a design perspective, nothing missing compared to newer games in the genre.



Regarding Ocarina of Time, the design of that game has aged very well. There isn't much "wrong" with it that wasn't already "wrong" in 1998. But modern gamers are more fickle and petty than they were back then, and there'd be a lot of complaints about how the game holds your hand too much and Navi is obnoxious and the ocarina mechanic is gimmicky OR that it has a lot of potential unexplored depth, just like the combat system...

In short, Ocarina of Time is as great as it was 16 years ago, but modern gamers would nit-pick the hell out of its minor flaws while glossing over the most important aspects of its design.



the games from the middle 80s (for example, the first Zelda, Metroid and Kid Icarus are 1986 games) are probably too archaic, but games nowadays definitely are worse than in 1994 or 1998.