The Video Game Critic

I've been told that there are actually threads on Atari Age discussing how I am biased AGAINST Atari systems!
Are you guys aware of this? What do YOU think?

Say what?

I haven't seen that thread(s), but I guess I'll have to investigate them now.

Not to speak on your behalf, but I think you actually champion the system:
A) That Atari joystick is in your banner
B) That Warlords/Medieval Mayhem seem to be favorites of yours
C) That this forum is a place fans of that system have come to share our joys and
D) You constantly range from games over a 40 year span of development, and yet you never disparage those 2nd generation systems for what they can't do graphically.
E) Your system review is quite complimentary, giving it okay scores for audio and a warning on the library.
F) Your entire system is based not what a game looks like, or sounds like, or how groundbreaking or popular it was, but just on how much fun it is relevant to other games in the same library. That is a very fair and useful system.

Well, that's my take

VideoGameCritic wrote:I've been told that there are actually threads on Atari Age discussing how I am biased AGAINST Atari systems!
Are you guys aware of this? What do YOU think?

It's because you like the NES more than the 7800 and don't think that the Jaguar was the most revolutionary system of the '90s.

You were even very lenient to the 5200, citing its strong points such as sound quality and arcade ports. Obviously the controller is a flaw but there are some workarounds for that. I honestly prefer the 5200 over the 7800.

Part of the reason I like this site is you review older things for systems I honestly am not that interested in. I'd much rather read about old atari games and systems then actually play an atari system nowadays.

I would not worry about it. I bet there are threads on other sites that claim you are biased against Nintendo, Sony, etc. Once someone (or a group of someones) thinks you are biased, they will never be convinced otherwise. They will cherrypick reviews that support their point (aka, confirmation bias).

It's a human failing, and isn't new to gaming. Just read the letters to the editor in old issues of Electronic Gaming Monthly. Once someone affiliates themselves with a tribe (game company) they instinctively see the outside tribes as threats.

hmmm....I dunno about that. I come to this site to read your Atari reviews and while I don't always agree with them, I've never thought you weren't a fan. In fact one of the main reasons I've recently been on the hunt for Atari 8-bit computer games has been due to your reviews. So the money I've sunk on those various Atari 400/800/XE lots are totally your fault.

As far as threads on AtariAge I do read posts on there semi-frequently and the only post I've read (that comes to mind) that was kinda pooping on your review was on a homebrew thread. I think they were stating it was overly critical and deserved a higher rating..pretty sure it was for a 7800 title. "Worm!" i think was the title? Maybe it was "Wasp!"? Meh..keep doing what you are doing man!

I think VGC is very fair. I found this site via Atari Age. I loved the Jag. Perhaps if you bumped their version of doom up you would get a better score.

I think part of the confusion stems from the fact that people aren't used to seeing F grades! They take offense!

I've heard people characterize F games as:
- Unplayable
- No redeeming qualities
- Broken
- Not worth playing

But that's not how I see it at all. F games are simply the counterpoint to A games.
If 20% of games get A's, then 20% should be F's. They are the least fun games for a system, but not necessarily terrible.

Plus I'm grading on how fun they are now.
I'm not going to pretend to be a wide-eyed 14 year old from 1991.
Certain games don't pass the test of time very well, but others age like wine!

If you want to play an F game, more power to you! Maybe you'll see something I missed.
People find beauty in different things.

I have always chuckled at the VGC F- ...