Need more classic reviews?

Postby **VideoGameCritic** » March 5th, 2006, 3:23 pm

One reader wrote in concerned that I was neglecting the old school reviews (Colecovision, Intellivision, etc) in favor of the newer stuff. This is quite possible, since the newer games are much more time intensive to review. How do you guys feel about this? Do I need to concentrate on the older stuff more? What sections would you like to see updated more often?

JustLikeHeaven1 · Postby **JustLikeHeaven1** » March 5th, 2006, 3:29 pm

[QUOTE=The Video Game Critic]One reader wrote in concerned that I was neglecting the old school reviews (Colecovision, Intellivision, etc) in favor of the newer stuff. This is quite possible, since the newer games are much more time intensive to review. How do you guys feel about this? Do I need to concentrate on the older stuff more? What sections would you like to see updated more often?
[/QUOTE]

I think you do a great job of mixing it up. One day you see new Genesis games reviewed, then you have 2600 games reviewed. Personally I like it when you review the more obscure stuff, Saturn, 3DO, Jaguar, Neo Geo etc... since you cannot find good reviews for these systems anywhere on the net besides your site. Though I think you do a perfect job of balancing classics and new games...

chrisbid1 · Postby **chrisbid1** » March 5th, 2006, 4:15 pm

youre the best on the net when it comes to mixing up the old with the new, but i can see how it is much easier to review newer games, as they are more plentiful.

i guess there is no easy answer, but i do like that you are going back and expanding on older reviews.

bluemonkey1 · Postby **bluemonkey1** » March 5th, 2006, 5:02 pm

It seems you do a pretty good mix between the different systems. Though I can't compare it to the past as I haven't been coming here that long.

I think you should just review whatever games you have an interest in playing at that time, otherwise your reviews might become forced and that might affect the grades.

Conn · Postby **Conn** » March 5th, 2006, 7:36 pm

You seem focus on a specific era for a while, then jump to another one a few updates later. It's not bad in the least, and it balances old, kinda old and new games.

As for sections being updated.. Gamecube. There's something like 47 games (which is still not half-bad for a collection), but it pales in comparasion to other sections.

sega saturn x · Postby **sega saturn x** » March 6th, 2006, 8:06 pm

Honetly I prefer newer reviews, since you pretty much know before hand what classic games are worth playing or not. And since most are so cheap it doesn't really matter.

John Rowland · Postby **John Rowland** » March 6th, 2006, 8:45 pm

[QUOTE=sega saturn x]Honetly I prefer newer reviews, since you pretty much know before hand what classic games are worth playing or not.[/QUOTE]

Puh-lease! Ok SSX, give us the definitive, system by system lists from Atari 2600 through N64, of all the games worth playing and not playing. Now!

This site's obvious greatest asset is the classic reviews. For current game reviews you can go to near-countless sources, but good classic review sources are few and far between. I like Dave's modern reviews because you know he has historical perspective, but the classic/obscure system reviews are what set this site apart. I never would have started collecting for the Virtual Boy if it wasn't for this site, and I never would have found so many great Genesis shooters such as M.U.S.H.A. and Truxton without this site (and the help of Alienblue and Zen ), etc.

Ultimately, I think the current mix is good though. Keep it up Dave!

sega saturn x · Postby **sega saturn x** » March 6th, 2006, 9:56 pm

[QUOTE=John Rowland]

[QUOTE=sega saturn x]Honetly I prefer newer reviews, since you pretty much know before hand what classic games are worth playing or not.[/QUOTE]

Puh-lease! Ok SSX, give us the definitive, system by system lists from Atari 2600 through N64, of all the games worth playing and not playing. Now!

[/QUOTE]

I could do that or you could just use common sense while buying games. Some developers make lousy games, while others make good or great ones. There's generally a pattern there. Yes there is exceptions, but this is a decent way of weeding out the potentially fun from the muck.

Besides everyone taste differ, no review site is ever definitive. I only agree with the critic about 40% of the time.

Paul Campbell · Postby **Paul Campbell** » March 7th, 2006, 2:03 am

[QUOTE=sega saturn x]

I could do that or you could just use common sense while buying games. Some developers make lousy games, while others make good or great ones. There's generally a pattern there. Yes there is exceptions, but this is a decent way of weeding out the potentially fun from the muck.

Besides everyone taste differ, no review site is ever definitive. I only agree with the critic about 40% of the time.

[/QUOTE]

What!?! You are not proving your point whatsoever.

bluemonkey1 · Postby **bluemonkey1** » March 7th, 2006, 4:59 am

SSX there are tons of games that are excellent but you might think they are rubbish if you didn't know. Beetle Adventure Racing for example might look gimmicky cash in rubbish but is actually a classic. While Sonic R may look good but is complete trash. Personally I have very little idea about anything pre Genesis so I find it quite interesting.