What is the “right” approach to reviewing a retro game?

[Sumez | 2,933]

17 hours ago, Tulpa said:

Because you probably didn't have much, if anything, to compare it to. Especially in the early gaming days (I should know, I was there for most of it.) We weren't focused on the future, just on what was in front of us on the TV. 

The reevaluation of those games came later, when we actually had more to compare.

I just disagree. There's a massive obsession with comparing stuff to eachother, that I think probably comes more out of habit than any real necessity. You don't need to compare a good game to any other game to see whether it's good. What matters is if it's good on its own.

I wasn't there for the really early years of video gaming, but I've been pretty busy with it since at least the late 80s, and although I quite honestly can't think of any specific examples, I won't deny that I've probably been wrong about some games at the time, and given them more credit than they maybe deserved. But to say that means the game "hasn't aged well" really just feels more like people are afraid of admitting their opinions can change. The game is still the same game that it was when it came out. That's just indisputable.
But then again, I also think even the shittiest game deserves some kind of merit if anyone's been able to derive entertainment from them. Doesn't mean they're immune to criticism.

Edited January 26, 2021 by Sumez

[ifightdragons | 234]

1 hour ago, Sumez said:

I just disagree. There's a massive obsession with comparing stuff to eachother, that I think probably comes more out of habit than any real necessity. You don't need to compare a good game to any other game to see whether it's good. What matters is if it's good on its own.

I wasn't there for the really early years of video gaming, but I've been pretty busy with it since at least the late 80s, and although I quite honestly can't think of any specific examples, I won't deny that I've probably been wrong about some games at the time, and given them more credit than they maybe deserved. But to say that means the game "hasn't aged well" really just feels more like people are afraid of admitting their opinions can change. The game is still the same game that it was when it came out. That's just indisputable.
But then again, I also think even the shittiest game deserves some kind of merit if anyone's been able to derive entertainment from them. Doesn't mean they're immune to criticism.

I agree with everything you're saying. At the same time, I think some reviewers of old games are far too quick to excuse lazy/bad design of some of these games. A perfect example is John Riggs on YouTube. He frequently rates a lot of NES games on a grade from S or A to F. He will frequently just throw out A's at any game that remotely has any redeeming qualities, even according to himself.

The pendulum can quickly swing the other way though, as some will be way too harsh on older games. I give credit to those with a bit more nuanced approach. Even though you love a system, franchise, or era of videogames, there's no shame in giving something an honest and fair assessment.

I also put a lot of value in reviewers who can be totally honest about really liking a game, and still be able to actually critique it. A good example of this would be Jeff Gerstmann at Giant Bomb. Back when he was working for Gamespot, he famously gave a very good score for Twilight Princess (8.8/10), and at the same time gave a very balanced review containing totally valid criticism. He was of course lambasted for this. How could anyone deviate from all the perfect 10s it was receiving? Looking back, I find his review to be by far the most spot on out of all the big reviews of that game from that time. All because he took an honest approach. He didn't try to convince himself that the game was anything else than what it was; A very good Zelda game, with its flaws.

Hopefully, this wasn't just a long tangent, and I managed to make a point.

[OptOut | 8,881]

Goddamn, my enemies list is growing by the fucking SECOND reading this thread... You come for my Goldeneye... You come for my N64 and it's BEAUTIFUL controller... You playing a DANGEROUS game...

[Sumez | 2,933]

I agree with almost all of that @ifightdragons. It's definitely worth pointing out that giving a solid review has nothing to do with the score you're giving a game, if you're even giving a score.

The most important thing you can do in a review is describing your experience with the game, what you appreciate in the game, and what you think is worth criticizing. And if you're doing a decent job at that, anyone who reads your review should be able to understand your perspective, no matter what context you're giving it.

I'll gladly celebrate any NES game that does something that I find super interesting even if it's overall a pretty bad game. It's not like it has to be only one or the other.

[Tulpa | 3,488]

5 hours ago, Sumez said:

I wasn't there for the really early years of video gaming, but I've been pretty busy with it since at least the late 80s, and although I quite honestly can't think of any specific examples, I won't deny that I've probably been wrong about some games at the time, and given them more credit than they maybe deserved. But to say that means the game "hasn't aged well" really just feels more like people are afraid of admitting their opinions can change. The game is still the same game that it was when it came out. That's just indisputable

Well, that's my point.

Opinions do change over time. But it's not because the game was bad for its time. It's because games can progress in certain ways that we never had or imagined. It's easy to have an opinion in hindsight. In the moment when it's happening, though? It's never that clear cut.

Yes, the game never changed. But the changing opinions on a game are just as much of a reality as the game itself. That's the whole point of the idiom. To colorfully reflect that shift in opinions.

If you can come up with a pithy, catchy idiom that describes the phenomenon (because this phenomenon does exist) in a better way, I'm all for it. Good luck with that, though.

Edited January 26, 2021 by Tulpa

[Sumez | 2,933]

Clouded vision?
Broadening your horizon?
Changing your perspective?

I feel that lots of terms apply well here. The important takeaway here is that the game wasn't good and then got worse because something else came along. It's exactly as good or as bad as it's always been, and the only thing that's changed is your own bias.  

[Tulpa | 3,488]

13 minutes ago, Sumez said:

The important takeaway here is that the game wasn't good and then got worse because something else came along. It's exactly as good or as bad as it's always been, and the only thing that's changed is your own bias.

I disagree. The context of the era it came out is important. It could very well be "good" for its time and time moved on. Good is subjective, not an absolute.

Edited January 26, 2021 by Tulpa

[Reed Rothchild | 9,510]

7 hours ago, Sumez said:

I just disagree. There's a massive obsession with comparing stuff to eachother, that I think probably comes more out of habit than any real necessity. You don't need to compare a good game to any other game to see whether it's good. What matters is if it's good on its own.

I wasn't there for the really early years of video gaming, but I've been pretty busy with it since at least the late 80s, and although I quite honestly can't think of any specific examples, I won't deny that I've probably been wrong about some games at the time, and given them more credit than they maybe deserved. But to say that means the game "hasn't aged well" really just feels more like people are afraid of admitting their opinions can change. The game is still the same game that it was when it came out. That's just indisputable.
But then again, I also think even the shittiest game deserves some kind of merit if anyone's been able to derive entertainment from them. Doesn't mean they're immune to criticism.

I think we're actually mostly in agreement.  No one is saying the games are literally changing, its just values and opinions can change over time.  When it happens on a massive scale with a particular game, it's sensible that there is a driving force behind it.

"Games aging" is just an idiom.

edit: looks like @Tulpa beat me to it

[Reed Rothchild | 9,510]

We have this exact same debate every two years.  Sumez has adopted the guntz position to a tee. 

[MagusSmurf | 577]

What people thought of a game back in the day and how it compared to contemporaries is useful for context and historical understanding but wholly irrelevant to how to score it now. The people from 1990 aren't reviewing it back then, you're reviewing it now. It either plays well nowadays (and looks/sounds appealing, etc.) or it doesn't and should be reviewed accordingly. Anything else is ridiculous. That there might be reasons to play bad games out of nostalgia, history, or whatever else could be worth mentioning in a review but does not prevent the games from being bad and shouldn't prevent them from getting a bad score.

And giving extra points to a game just for being old or on a lacking console seems pretty insulting to games in the latter groups too, especially the good games that actually earned their scores be being, you know, good. If you're going to do that, you might as well make it explicit and also tell us what you'd rate the game if it were new so that we at least have the real measure of the game's worth.

[GPX | 1,369]

17 minutes ago, MagusSmurf said:

What people thought of a game back in the day and how it compared to contemporaries is useful for context and historical understanding but wholly irrelevant to how to score it now. The people from 1990 aren't reviewing it back then, you're reviewing it now. It either plays well nowadays (and looks/sounds appealing, etc.) or it doesn't and should be reviewed accordingly. Anything else is ridiculous. That there might be reasons to play bad games out of nostalgia, history, or whatever else could be worth mentioning in a review but does not prevent the games from being bad and shouldn't prevent them from getting a bad score.

And giving extra points to a game just for being old or on a lacking console seems pretty insulting to games in the latter groups too, especially the good games that actually earned their scores be being, you know, good. If you're going to do that, you might as well make it explicit and also tell us what you'd rate the game if it were new so that we at least have the real measure of the game's worth.

This goes back to the original point of the thread. If we simplify it such that we’re comparing it to modern games then Pong and most Atari games would be a 1-2 out of 10 due to their bare minimum in all aspects of a review (visuals, sounds, replayability etc.). 

Pong in particular is the epitome of “simple” and what’s interesting here when doing a quick search:

If you look at the polling, you see all sorts of different scores and reasoning to give it anything other than a 1/10. Are their reviews wrong? Objectively, their scoring outcome is questionable. Subjectively, when reading through their reasons, I agree with all their scores from 2-8 out of 10!

 

[GPX | 1,369]

3 hours ago, Tulpa said:

Well, that's my point.

Opinions do change over time. But it's not because the game was bad for its time. It's because games can progress in certain ways that we never had or imagined. It's easy to have an opinion in hindsight. In the moment when it's happening, though? It's never that clear cut.

Yes, the game never changed. But the changing opinions on a game are just as much of a reality as the game itself. That's the whole point of the idiom. To colorfully reflect that shift in opinions.

If you can come up with a pithy, catchy idiom that describes the phenomenon (because this phenomenon does exist) in a better way, I'm all for it. Good luck with that, though.

Phenomenon...”perspectives change with time”?

Kind of like “rarity”. A few years ago, I thought some sports games were common, and sold them off cheap. Now I can’t find another one to put it back into the collection. “Common” my ass!

[Bearcat-Doug | 5,104]

I mainly focus on if a game is fun or not. I would rate the graphics/sound based on other games from the same time period, but it still all comes down to if a game is fun for me.

[MagusSmurf | 577]

With a 1-10 scale, if a game basically works, is sorta fun for a few minutes, and doesn't require any tedium to get there, I think a score of 2 is probably justified even if the game is overly simple, ugly, and repetitive. Haven't played Pong lately or ever for very long so maybe even I'm overestimating Pong but I don't find 2/10 "not the absolute lowest score you could have possibly given it" unreasonable. As for Atari in general, I have very little Atari experience myself so perhaps I'm selling the library a little short but I would indeed expect that most Atari games should score rather poorly. I...see no problem?

Though a potential issue I have with you there is what you mean by "modern games." There is indeed a bit of friction caused by comparing simple high score fests to a competitive multiplayer game with dozens of people at the same time or a 100-hour sandbox but that's just the nature of cross-genre comparisons in general. But while they tend not to attract much attention nowadays because they can't justify a full game's budget and aren't popular (and I don't have much interest myself), new high-score focused games still exist and Pong absolutely shouldn't get bonus points in comparison to them just because it's famous.

[Sumez | 2,933]

14 hours ago, Tulpa said:

I disagree. The context of the era it came out is important. It could very well be "good" for its time and time moved on. Good is subjective, not an absolute.

Exactly like I said in the exact post you're quoting, your own bias is what changed.

The only place where we disagree is on the last thing you're saying, and I'll have to stand by my point. Why should "good" be a relative estimate? I'm repeating myself here, so there's not really any reason to go on here, but I'll say just once more - if the "context of the era" somehow magically allowed a game to be good, wouldn't that mean people were able to play it and get thoroughly entertained by it? And again, if that's the case, what is there to keep them from doing it today?

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

At the end of the day... pretty much every single time I've ever heard anyone claim something "aged poorly" my thoughts have been that either the game's issues were just as apparent when it came out, or that it's "aged" just fine and isn't really held back by its graphics or whatever someone might feel isn't up to date.

[Sumez | 2,933]

14 hours ago, MagusSmurf said:

And giving extra points to a game just for being old or on a lacking console seems pretty insulting to games in the latter groups too, especially the good games that actually earned their scores be being, you know, good.

Very well put, and I think this should be the central takeaway from any discussion like this. You can recognize the historical significance of a game without trying to pretend that it is better than it is.

[Homer | 17]

There isn't really a "right" approach to writing a game reviews.  I enjoy different reviewers for different reasons.  Some funny, others very informative like Jeremy Parish.  

 

[GPX | 1,369]

16 hours ago, MagusSmurf said:

With a 1-10 scale, if a game basically works, is sorta fun for a few minutes, and doesn't require any tedium to get there, I think a score of 2 is probably justified even if the game is overly simple, ugly, and repetitive. Haven't played Pong lately or ever for very long so maybe even I'm overestimating Pong but I don't find 2/10 "not the absolute lowest score you could have possibly given it" unreasonable. As for Atari in general, I have very little Atari experience myself so perhaps I'm selling the library a little short but I would indeed expect that most Atari games should score rather poorly. I...see no problem?

Though a potential issue I have with you there is what you mean by "modern games." There is indeed a bit of friction caused by comparing simple high score fests to a competitive multiplayer game with dozens of people at the same time or a 100-hour sandbox but that's just the nature of cross-genre comparisons in general. But while they tend not to attract much attention nowadays because they can't justify a full game's budget and aren't popular (and I don't have much interest myself), new high-score focused games still exist and Pong absolutely shouldn't get bonus points in comparison to them just because it's famous.

The other thing to consider is to ask who are you reviewing it for when doing a review on an Atari game? Surely not for the pure Modern gamers? And who are you trying to reach out to when reviewing an N64 game? Surely not the pure PC gamers?

I guess the point is that a review needs to also take into account its target audience, and in a context in which the target audience would appreciate. So for example, going further with the Atari topic, the majority of people wanting to read on my review of ET, they might prefer to read on how the “fun factor” fares with the likes of Pitfall or River Raid on the same platform. As opposed to its “fun factor” compared with a modern day classic with Bluray-capacity gigs. 

[GPX | 1,369]

3 hours ago, Homer said:

There isn't really a "right" approach to writing a game reviews.  I enjoy different reviewers for different reasons.  Some funny, others very informative like Jeremy Parish.  

 

Another vantage point is by thinking to yourself, “how would I like my reviews to be done of x retro game?”

And I agree, there is no one absolute right way. 

[BortLicensePlate | 652]

18 hours ago, Reed Rothchild said:

We have this exact same debate every two years.  Sumez has adopted the guntz position to a tee. 

What ever happened to good ol Guntz, cheery fella he was

[Kguillemette | 1,543]

Does the game accomplish what it set out to do? Was what it set out to do a good idea in the first place? How good does it look while doing it?

[Tulpa | 3,488]

7 hours ago, Sumez said:

The only place where we disagree is on the last thing you're saying, and I'll have to stand by my point. Why should "good" be a relative estimate?

Because we don't know what the future will bring. We don't know what will be good down the road, rendering some of what we have now obsolete. If we did, we'd have an absolute scale of good for what we have now, but we don't.

We can call it "changing bias" which is fine. But let's not pretend that we have anywhere near a handle on what is "good", other than what we know in this moment.

7 hours ago, Sumez said:

I'm repeating myself here, so there's not really any reason to go on here, but I'll say just once more - if the "context of the era" somehow magically allowed a game to be good, wouldn't that mean people were able to play it and get thoroughly entertained by it? And again, if that's the case, what is there to keep them from doing it today?

It didn't magically allow it to be good, it was good for its time. It's not based on anything rational, it's based on people's emotions, and those things are malleable as fuck.

We're not robots. Well, at least I'm not. Not so sure about you if you're unwilling to accept an idiom (and we're 99% sure Guntz was, or at least Drax the Destroyer.)

Some people can play old games, even the ones that "aged poorly." But if the majority has moved on, then that's where the idiom takes place.

Unfortunately, none of your alternative suggestions are pithy and colorful enough to dislodge that idiom from the lexicon.

7 hours ago, Sumez said:

 

At the end of the day... pretty much every single time I've ever heard anyone claim something "aged poorly" my thoughts have been that either the game's issues were just as apparent when it came out, or that it's "aged" just fine and isn't really held back by its graphics or whatever someone might feel isn't up to date.

No, they usually weren't apparent, we had no way of knowing, otherwise no one would play it back in the day. And if has "aged" just fine, more people would play them today.

 

I'm okay to say we can agree to disagree and let it be.

Won't make the idiom go away, though.

Edited January 27, 2021 by Tulpa

[mbd39 | 2,017]

On 1/24/2021 at 8:37 PM, The Strangest said:

I want to ask another question: Do people who only experience a game via emulator have the authority to critique them? Might be a dumb question but not all emulators are equal and some can hamper the experience from sound to visuals etc.

Some emulators are more accurate than others. NES and SNES emulation is extremely accurate. But lag may affect the experience compared to playing on real hardware on a CRT.

 

[T-Pac | 7,513]

@Sumez and @Tulpa - I think the disconnect here is that you are both looking at the same phenomenon in two different (but parallel) ways.

When people play a game, their opinion of it is directly influenced by the context they play it in. This context includes current gaming trends, other available games, the evolution of genres up to that point, etc. All of these elements form the expectations and popular sentiments of gamers at the time. And as media evolves, so do these expectations and popular sentiments.

One argument (Sumez) says that the games don’t change, only the sentiments and bias toward them.
The other argument (Tulpa) says that, because the games are a product of their time, they age.

You are both right, but only if you see these two facets together.
Games are experienced as a product of their environment, and public perception of those games evolves with time. Games age because our perceptions age, and neither happens independently.

To say that the overall perception of gaming does not evolve over time to result in a sense of games “aging” would be missing half the argument. Likewise, while games may not be functionally different no matter when you play them, the same game still “changes” over time because it is always experienced in the context that it’s played - nothing exists in a vacuum.

-CasualCart

[Tulpa | 3,488]

But can you express it in a cartoon?