"For its time"

[Kuro]

This phrase annoys me to a degree that it probably shouldn't.

"Man, that game was amazing for its time."

Like, I can't simply say 'Twilight Princess is a better game than Ocarina of Time' (note: this is an example, and not the subject of the post. This is not assessing the validity of this claim, only the responses that such claims garner) because for whatever reason I have to take into account the fact that the older game was made on older hardware that just wasn't capable of today's standards.

I think this is pretty ridiculous.

Games are an evolving medium, that much is obvious. What games are capable of now, games weren't capable of back then. But this shouldn't mean that we're not able to judge the games of yesterday on the same standards of the games of today.

You may have had just as much fun playing OLD GAME then as you do playing NEW GAME now (the two games are similar; perhaps they are in the same series, or perhaps NEW GAME is just an evolution of the genre), but try to imagine this: it's back when you were at that age you are currently nostalgic for. You're playing OLD GAME then, and you're loving it. However, suddenly your friend comes over to your house brandishing a modern day NEW GAME, that is pretty much like OLD GAME but everything has been worked up to make it better. The graphics are better, the controls are tighter, the narrative is told better, there is voice acting, etc. etc. Suddenly the flaws of OLD GAME would become clear to you, when you're able to see how much better NEW GAME does everything. Being able to assess the games without any sense of nostalgia or elitist bullshit and you'd probably note that NEW GAME is better.

I don't give a shit how good a game was for its time when I'm trying to decide what the best games are. I care about how good the game is now.

This is what I care about.

P.S. The thing that inspired me to make this thread was IGN giving Majora's Mask's graphics a 9. What the fuck? That game is ugly by any real standards.

[Hedzshot01]

At 5/19/09 07:25 AM, Kuro wrote:

P.S. The thing that inspired me to make this thread was IGN giving Majora's Mask's graphics a 9. What the fuck? That game is ugly by any real standards.

If you say Majora's Mask graphics are shit il agree with you, if you said it when it had just came out id smack you in the face. The fact is almost every old game has bad graphics and you have to remember if a review said "Terrible graphics, nothing compared to recent releases" it would be in all fairness a terrible review. The graphics are reviewed differently depending on the console which plays it thats why a game with great graphics on the Xbox 360 might get and 7 or a 8 and a game with terrible graphics on the N64 might get a 9

[The-Great-One]

The term "for its time" is a good term to use, but not when using it to defend another game. Ocarina of Time is a wonderful game and for many gamers has become a milestone in their childhoods. However when compared to Twilight Princess you can still use that term.

Ocarina of Time was great game "for its time" however Twilight Princess is like Ocarina of Time, but with many improvements from its predecessor.

I agree with you that the "for its time" label shouldn't be used to try and say that a certain game is better than one that has come generations later, but by saying that would bring up an issue amongst Sonic the Hedgehog fans and video game critics.

The phrase should only be used to describe how a game was back then and why it was popular.

[WilliWowza]

Kuro you shouldn't start getting worked up every time IGN does wrong, if that were the case I'd have died from high blood pressure by now.

But seriously you're right. Sticking with the Twilight Princess example there are so many people who claim it to be a bad game. Why is this? It basically does everything that OoT did but improves on it, with better graphics, controls and other aspects. Even though I prefer OoT, I believe that had I played Twilight Princess first I'd say that was my favourite. It's all just nostalgia clearing people's judgements. IGN, who are meant to be 'professional' games journalists, are often the worst culprits of this.

[diuqscirtic]

It's a perfectly valid phrase, if we compared everything to today's standards we'd be assraping some amazing old things. The original super computer, by today's standards is a heap of junk, but that doesn't make it a heap of junk? Back when it was new it was amazing technology.

[sushi13]

Surely the whole point of video games is to derive the most amount of enjoyment from them, not to be smacked upside the head by amazing graphics. There are many games well over 10 years old that I'd much rather play than most games released recently.

[Zen444]

At 5/19/09 09:49 AM, Jezuz wrote: Disregards Diablo and the good Fallout games
Plays garbage like Failout 3 and Titan Quest

Cool shitty taste in games bro.

Also oh man that dr strangelove movie, what a piece of shit it's so old and it's in black and white and wheres the CGI? i want cgi and quick cuts and colour fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc king gay old movies

[MaciekOst]

Thread derailed to infinity.
Good job guys. The troll and people who fell for him.

[MaciekOst]

At 5/19/09 02:06 PM, MaciekOst wrote: Thread derailed to infinity.
Good job guys. The troll and people who fell for him.

DAmnit, I meant to post that inn the Fallout 3 DLC thread.

[BananaBreadMuffin]

Pssssssssssh, this is reviewing a $10 game. For $10, those graphics are perfectly fine.

I assume you're talking about this review of course: http://uk.wii.ign.com/articles/983/98389 1p1.html

[Jerkapotamus]

At 5/19/09 07:25 AM, Kuro wrote: That game is ugly by any real standards.

The Wii doesn't have real standards.

[Pounce]

At 5/19/09 07:25 AM, Kuro wrote:

P.S. The thing that inspired me to make this thread was IGN giving Majora's Mask's graphics a 9. What the fuck? That game is ugly by any real standards.

If you think N64 graphics were bad then you're blinder than a bat

[knuxrouge]

Flaws!
I detect flaws!
Not perceptively logical!
Commencing break down of logical points!

1. IGN sucks, and you should never take their reviews seriously.
If you do, you fail. Plain and simple.

2. "For it's time" is in fact a viable term to use.
Sonic Adventure had great graphics for it's time. A 124 bit home console was a mindblowing phenomenon in 1999.

3. Comparing 2 games made in 2 different decades is simply down right retarded. And combining the 2 time frames together to make a sound comparison is even more retarded. You said it yourself that you can't judge a classic game's quality using today's incomprehensible standards. So thus, you judge them "for their time".

4. This looks like--and is--lame bitching at retro gamers/nostalgic fans. Get a grip.
They're called "classics" for a reason and their impression on the gaming world will forever be remembered and acknowledged.
If that gets your panties in a bunch, that's on you.
Live with it.
Or don't, I don't care.

[Kuro]

At 5/19/09 03:24 PM, Pounce wrote: If you think N64 graphics were bad then you're blinder than a bat

I don't think that they were bad.

I think that they are bad.

[xscoot]

The statement doesn't need to be used. Something is either good, or it is not. For example, the music from Fallout 3 are all songs from the 20's. How many of you are still hooked on "Butcher Pete"?

[Pounce]

At 5/19/09 04:13 PM, Kuro wrote:

At 5/19/09 03:24 PM, Pounce wrote: If you think N64 graphics were bad then you're blinder than a bat

I don't think that they were bad.

I think that they are bad.

Then you have absolutely zero valid opinion on video games and should be treated as a spoiled little girl who thinks her XBAWKSX 360 is a first gen console.

[Kuro]

At 5/19/09 04:17 PM, Pounce wrote: Then you have absolutely zero valid opinion on video games and should be treated as a spoiled little girl who thinks her XBAWKSX 360 is a first gen console.

Wow.

[Jerkapotamus]

IGN can't review graphics of old games correctly. When they give them high marks, people like you (and me) complain about them giving a high score to something that clearly doesn't deserve it. We're buying games in 2009, and games should be reviewed in that context.

On the other hand, if they give a nostalgia game like MM9 a low graphics score, which they did, then people complain about the graphics being scored poorly because it was an intentional defect. I don't personally agree with the argument, but it shows how IGN is always going to make people unhappy.

I don't really see the big deal. Either way, you should know what you're getting with an old game.

[The-Great-One]

ITT: We Discuss Graphics... and nothing more.

The reason why Majora's Mask has a 9 is because during the Nintendo 64's time those were the best graphics around. It was a really great game. When you review old games you have to judge them graphic wise during it's time of release.

I prefer the way Game Informer reviews old games. Showing their grade of what it was then and showing their grade of what it is now amongst the other games.

[Jerkapotamus]

At 5/19/09 06:44 PM, The-Great-One wrote: When you review old games you have to judge them graphic wise during it's time of release.

No you don't.

:That was easy.

[MetalDart]

At 5/19/09 06:53 PM, Jerkapotamus wrote:

At 5/19/09 06:44 PM, The-Great-One wrote: When you review old games you have to judge them graphic wise during it's time of release.

No you don't.

That was easy.

Like when Megaman 9 got a graphic review of 3.0
As if those graphics were due to a limited budget or something.

[Kuro]

At 5/19/09 06:44 PM, The-Great-One wrote: When you review old games you have to judge them graphic wise during it's time of release.

You know that they're not sending their review back in time so that people ten years ago can read it, right?

No.

They're reviewing the game now, for gamers who are now used to better games.

They should judge the game accordingly.

[knuxrouge]

At 5/19/09 06:53 PM, Jerkapotamus wrote:

At 5/19/09 06:44 PM, The-Great-One wrote: When you review old games you have to judge them graphic wise during it's time of release.

No you don't.

That was easy.

I love how you back up your argument with sound points and cohesive and coherent statements, with viable references to add credibility to an otherwise opinionated claim.

Oh wait.....

[Chumbawamba]

It's true that Majora's Mask's graphics are outdated, but what stills attracts me about that game as far as the appearance goes is the design. That game is really a work of art. Some levels were just so COLORFUL and groovy, and if there's another game out there with similar design, I'd really like to know about it.

[Jerkapotamus]

At 5/20/09 02:13 AM, knuxrouge wrote: I love how you back up your argument with sound points and cohesive and coherent statements, with viable references to add credibility to an otherwise opinionated claim.

Oh wait.....

His claim was just as unsubstantiated, which was the whole point. My argument, however, is just common sense, so nothing more was needed. As a reviewer, you don't have to do anything or follow any sort of framework. I guess common sense is too much for you, though. If you're ever confused about seemingly obvious statement again, ask your mom to explain it to you. She won't judge you.

[knuxrouge]

At 5/20/09 06:15 AM, Jerkapotamus wrote:

At 5/20/09 02:13 AM, knuxrouge wrote: I love how you back up your argument with sound points and cohesive and coherent statements, with viable references to add credibility to an otherwise opinionated claim.

Oh wait.....

His claim was just as unsubstantiated, which was the whole point.

Because stooping to his level is all about common sense, right?

My argument, however, is just common sense, so nothing more was needed.

The fuck off your pedestal, it's not common sense, it's a state of opinion. There is no undeniable fact to your position that in any way leads your disposition to be absolutely correct. There is no written standard on how to approach a professionally conducted review.
Common sense is deciding to walk down the other block, because the main one has a dead body on it.

Simply siding with a state of mind isn't.

As a reviewer, you don't have to do anything-

I like this phrase. You should be employed by IGN.

-or follow any sort of framework.

You don't have to for modern games, older games are a different context, because their appeal was from an earlier time, so duh, it won't fare by today's appeal, that's like giving a trig exam to a 1st grader.
When reviewing, your base is the appeal and how it reflects from your personal standards, so naturally, if the appeal is meant for an older time, you'll judge it so.
I guess it's impression on you preferences leads to you just not liking classic games.
And you call that common sense...
Poppycock!

I guess common sense is too much for you,

Because your insightful genius concludes it so.

If you're ever confused about seemingly obvious statement again,

And I quote, "No it's not"

ask your mom to explain it to you. She won't judge you.

You don't know much about my mom then.

My whole statement wasn't that your statement wasn't obvious, just that you did a shitty job making it sound or credible.
And you justify it by saying "He did it too"
If you're fueled by common sense, then you've been running on E today.

[RDSchley]

fine... then you know what? Halo sucks because it's graphics arent as good as Halo 3..

sorry but your 9 years old and have been spoon fed games that completely suck (or are unoriginal) but have amazing graphics. before (roughly) Xbox, Sony and Nintendo duked it out in a game (no pun) of wits trying to think of fun games that people enjoyed; Not games that's sole objective was to show off it's console's graphic capabilities. Lets face it, there are more very bad games today that hide behind a mask of "z0mg" great graphics than there were in the past.

With all said go play some SNES games or PS2 games and be amazed that they are most likely more fun than Halo or Fallout 3.

Another example is that we aren't experiencing "Legendary game status" of today's games anymore. Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time <- Legendary and people STILL remember it. Super Mario World <- Legendary and people STILL remember it. Baldur's Gate <- Legendary and people STILL remember it. Starcraft <- Legendary AND IT'S STILL BEING PLAYED 11 YEARS LATER?!... AND ITS STILL ON THE TOP 10 STRATEGY GAMES LIST?!

honestly kid, repsect the golden oldies and remember: Graphics do not contribute to game play as much as gameplay itself (someone quote me on that)

[Jerkapotamus]

At 5/20/09 07:23 PM, knuxrouge wrote:

His claim was just as unsubstantiated, which was the whole point.

Because stooping to his level is all about common sense, right?

I'm not stooping to his level. His claim is nonsensical; mine isn't.

The fuck off your pedestal, it's not common sense, it's a state of opinion. There is no undeniable fact to your position that in any way leads your disposition to be absolutely correct. There is no written standard on how to approach a professionally conducted review.

Your final statement is a rewording of what I said. Way to go. I think you're a bit confused on what I'm arguing. All I said was that game reviewers do not have review graphics based on their time period. There is no obligation, or as you put it, written standard, on how to review graphics.

You don't have to for modern games, older games are a different context, because their appeal was from an earlier time, so duh, it won't fare by today's appeal, that's like giving a trig exam to a 1st grader.

This contradicts what you just said: "There is no written standard on how to approach a professionally conducted review." followed by "You don't have to for modern games, older games are a different context." Which one is it?

You're also not even arguing the right point. All I said is that reviewers do not have to. You're arguing if they should or not. Here's where common sense comes in. If reviewers have to do something, then there would not be an instance of reviewers doing the opposite. There certainly are examples, so my position is not an opinion, but is a fact. Again, I really think you misconstrued what I was arguing. If you want to go into my opinions on what reviewers should do, I think the graphics should be graded by today's standards because that's the time period people will be buying it. If the gameplay sitll holds up, however, I don't think the overall game review score should be hampered by it. That's all irrelevant to whether game reviewers have to do something though.

I guess it's impression on you preferences leads to you just not liking classic games.
And you call that common sense...
Poppycock!

I never mentioned anything about enjoyment of classic games.

My current understand is that you misunderstood me. If not, clarify why saying a game reviewer has to review a game, in particular its graphics, a certain way (in the absence of money hats) is not logical.

[Dr34m3r]

At 5/20/09 08:17 PM, RDSchley wrote:
honestly kid, repsect the golden oldies and remember: Graphics do not contribute to game play as much as gameplay itself (someone quote me on that)

No. And how the hell are you to show up for one post and offer your opinion as fact?

I do agree with Kuro, actually. Modern games are being judged by today's standards, so why shouldn't classics? Of course, gameplay doesn't get degraded over the years, but graphics of course do.

So if someone was to review Ocarina of Time and LOVE the gameplay, but hate the graphics, it's only fair to grade gameplay high, graphics low. Especially if it's what they do with new games.

[Jerkapotamus]

At 5/20/09 08:22 PM, Dr34m3r wrote: I do agree with Kuro, actually. Modern games are being judged by today's standards, so why shouldn't classics? Of course, gameplay doesn't get degraded over the years, but graphics of course do.

Gameplay can degrade with time, but it doesn't have to, and there's no connection with graphics. As new gameplay innovations are introduced, old game can sometimes feel awkward and less fun. People disagree on this one a lot, but I'd say Goldeneye 64 is a pretty good example. Great game at the time, but the gameplay isn't as good after playing FPS's with dual-analogue.

So if someone was to review Ocarina of Time and LOVE the gameplay, but hate the graphics, it's only fair to grade gameplay high, graphics low. Especially if it's what they do with new games.

Yes, totally agree.