Page 1 of 1

6/30/2006: Genesis: World Series Baseball, World Series Baseball 95, World Series Baseball 96, World Series Baseball 98

Posted: June 30th, 2006, 2:41 pm
by VideoGameCritic
This series never quite lived up to its potential, in my opinion.

6/30/2006: Genesis: World Series Baseball, World Series Baseball 95, World Series Baseball 96, World Series Baseball 98

Posted: July 1st, 2006, 9:28 am
by chrisbid1
it was a symptom of modern gaming and realism pushing aside arcade sensibility in video games in the 16 bit era. madden was never an arcade football game like tecmo bowl was, but its realism for its time propelled it to the top. WS baseball on the genesis was the most realistic baseball game on the console market. It wouldve been a bigger hit, had baseball in general been more popular in the 90's after the strike.

and if nothing else, it WS on the genesis provided the framework for world series 98 on the saturn, my favorite modern baseball game of all time

6/30/2006: Genesis: World Series Baseball, World Series Baseball 95, World Series Baseball 96, World Series Baseball 98

Posted: July 1st, 2006, 4:54 pm
by Michael D

Good reviews, but I'm a little confused.  Why, if you stated that "World Series Baseball 96 represents Sega at its very worst" and is "basically the same game as 95" did it still get the same B-?  Also, you complained about 98 in a similar way, but it also got a B-.  Based on your comments, shouldn't the scores for 96 and 98 be lower? 

Oh, and for the record, the real games that "represent Sega at its very worst" are Shadow the Hedgehog and Virtua Quest (both ruined great franchises).  


6/30/2006: Genesis: World Series Baseball, World Series Baseball 95, World Series Baseball 96, World Series Baseball 98

Posted: July 1st, 2006, 5:18 pm
by chrisbid1
if the games are the same, then they deserve the same grade. sounds pretty simple to me

6/30/2006: Genesis: World Series Baseball, World Series Baseball 95, World Series Baseball 96, World Series Baseball 98

Posted: July 1st, 2006, 6:53 pm
by Michael D
Well, that may be, but don't you think you need to take into account that Sega rehashed this game two times in a row, didn't add any significantly new features either time and charged full price ($50-$60) for each game?  That's pretty lazy, especially when you consider other sports games adding at least one new element (if not more) with their yearly upgrades. 

6/30/2006: Genesis: World Series Baseball, World Series Baseball 95, World Series Baseball 96, World Series Baseball 98

Posted: July 2nd, 2006, 12:56 am
by VideoGameCritic
It's an interesting argument, but I believe in judging games as they stand alone.  If the publisher is being unscrupulous, I like to mention it in the review, but the game should be judged for what it is.

In the early 90's I remember Electronic Gaming Monthly getting mad at Capcom for their incremental releases of Street Fighter (over $70 each).  They actually penalized Super Street Fighter 2 with a mediocre grade, even though it was superior to its predecessors.  In the long run, that approach just doesn't make much sense.


6/30/2006: Genesis: World Series Baseball, World Series Baseball 95, World Series Baseball 96, World Series Baseball 98

Posted: July 2nd, 2006, 3:22 am
by a1

I'm with the Critic here. New versions of games are still frequently released, and magazines tend to give them equal or higher grades than their predecessors. Ninja Gaiden, Devil May Cry 3, and Resident Evil 4 all did this. Even if the games are only mildly improved, they are still good for people who never played the first. If the magazines lowered the grades because most of the content was the same then some people would miss out on those great games, or get the worse, original version. You have to grade games like you never played the other ones in the series. Sonic 2 didn't change much from the original, but it was still fun right?


6/30/2006: Genesis: World Series Baseball, World Series Baseball 95, World Series Baseball 96, World Series Baseball 98

Posted: July 2nd, 2006, 2:28 pm
by Michael D
[QUOTE=a]

I'm with the Critic here. New versions of games are still frequently released, and magazines tend to give them equal or higher grades than their predecessors. Ninja Gaiden, Devil May Cry 3, and Resident Evil 4 all did this. Even if the games are only mildly improved, they are still good for people who never played the first. If the magazines lowered the grades because most of the content was the same then some people would miss out on those great games, or get the worse, original version. You have to grade games like you never played the other ones in the series. Sonic 2 didn't change much from the original, but it was still fun right?

[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but Sonic 2 changed over the orignal, right?  And it was actually a new game, right?  And the Devil May Cry 3 and Ninja Gaiden directors' cuts actually added some significant stuff and were priced appropriately ($20 or $30). And RE4 was a port to the PS2 with some extras added in, meant primarily for those who don't have a Gamecube.