That one quiet kid back in '94 with the 32X version, sitting in a crowed cafeteria at school, surrounded by other kids who are constantly gushing over the SNES version...

Kids were mocking the SNES version. No blood. II you had to put in a code.

Base. But in the case of AC, Pro just has the benefits of the quality mode but at 60fps. For a third person action adventure game, 60 Vs 30fps is not changing the score. BOTW isn't suddenly bad because it's 30fps, Dragon Age isn't suddenly a masterpiece because it has a 60fps mode.

These tech details should be noted in the review though for players to make their own decision with 

I was talking about SNES MK2, which had it all and was considered by everyone to be superior... and still is. Although, if you play the different versions, you quickly realize that the SNES version did not run as well. It was closer to the arcade when it came to visuals, sounds and music. But there were was slow down. And the game just ran slower overall.

But back in the day, if you didn't have MK2 for SNES, you were a loser. Mocked to the ends of the earth.

A good reviewer will cover the differences in all versions.

What I am talking about. MKII didn't have blood unless you put in a code.

Base console. The Pro version is still the same game. It would be like telling a reviewer to review a PC game twice, one on low settings and one on medium settings.
Plus the base console is the standard.

For consoles the base should be the main focus or at the very least tested enough since that's what the vast majority of console gamers will be using and for PC there should be enough testing on mid-range and lower end hardware. With how important performance is it should impact game reviews more in general. A game should not get a 10 if it runs poorly.

Of course a game shouldn't get 10/10s if it runs poorly but should they be given Lee way? Take Cyberpunk 2077 for example, it was so clear to us that that game was a 10 out of 10 even playing on base 8th gen and there were people who did not mind at all that it was broken and so janky with a really high completion rate regardless. 

The point I'm getting at, should technicals and the game, provided it is not broken, be taken as a seperate thing as the main review. Perhaps the technical aspects get a score of their own. It's also iffy cause these days games have the potential to fix post launch but reviewers rarely are going to return so reviews a launch don't inform consumers decisions on purchasing properly after the fact these days. Like Cyberpunk and No man's Sky climbed bavk to overwhelmingly positive reviews from users on Steam, I wish there was a way this attitude to a dud release could be rewarded. So many games with such great potential like Anthem are just left stillborn. 

It's not the same though, you get quality mode graphics with AC Shadows at 60fps on PRO. I agree with you but it's def not the same.