The Video Game Critic

[QUOTE=Alienblue] replying to M0zarts assertion that "Despite being the first plug-n-play..The Channel F was a complete waste of time." No, it wasn't. While I admit the system has almost zero fun games to play today (possibly excepting ALIEN INVASION and WHIZBALL), you have to put it in evolutionary perspective. It bridged the gap between "move the black and white square" PONG systems and the Atari 2600. It made the first attempt to make REAL OBJECTS on the Tv screen; as blocky as they were, you could still tell they were tanks, ships,planes and it was in COLOR too! Also, the low resolution, hard wiring and 2K memory inspired ATARI to make the 2600 more flexible, raise the Rez and put 4K onboard. Thanks,F![/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Alienblue] Sorry I keep jumping in, but... Someone was griping on how awful the NES games have aged. No disagreement, but we should judge these systems on how good they WERE when they came out, not now! The NES had no equal... other systems FORCED you to restart from the start, at LEAST the NES has passwords(and later batteries!). Channel F was excellent for 1976...it..um..just stunk in 1977 when the 2600 came out! [/QUOTE]

Its almost Christmas, so how about some wisdom from Ghost of Forum Past in the form of Alienblue. 

Saw these quotes from AlienBlue back in 2007 in a discussion on least favorite consoles (http://dmrozek.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=1975103&trail=15).  

His quotes:
"you have to put it in evolutionary perspective"
"we should judge these systems on how good they were when they came out, not now!". 

I agree.  

I agree for both systems and the games. 

Sure, radio and the NES are not what they used to be, but somewhere in reviewing (which is a form of remembering) these things, we should remember their glory days.  Maybe the grade should be modern fun grade only, but it should always be remembered when dinosaurs ruled the earth.   Today they are just fossils in a staid museum, but once, they made the earth quake.

Yeah, I think scotland makes some interesting points. Honestly, I immediately dismissed them when I first read his posts but there are some well argued points. I guess the main problem I have with that is (as a collector) I have no interest in playing games that are junk today. Games are relatively expensive now (even the cheaper ones) and I don't usually buy a game for the historical significance if I know I can't get any enjoyment out of it today.

The VGC's review scores are useful from a collective standpoint because 1. he's trying new games for old and new consoles all the time, so he would not be a creditable source for how he felt about a game in the 70's and 80's (i don't even think the VGC is that old, I always thought his intro to games was probably in the 80's) and 2. he already tries to rate games based on the console that they're on. An example of this is on the original Wii, where he has admitted that he rated a game higher on that console compared to other consoles from that generation (such as the 360 and PS3) because the Wii had meager third party support. He hasn't always followed this to the T, as he has compared games from around the same era, different systems, and that has influenced his scores as well, but he is fairly consistent on how he grades things.

Also, if he didn't take some historical significance into play games like Golden Eye or Perfect Dark (N64) would have C's, D's, or F's simply because they are outdated on modern consoles. So in a way, he already takes some historical aspects into consideration (such as a console's library of games) when he rates how enjoyable a game is to him. However, if the game is severely outdated and terrible today, he isn't afraid to score it low, compared to games which have aged better.

First off, I agree that Baseball might not deserve an F. Admittedly, it sucks, but there was some fun to be had. But there is a general feeling that NES games haven't aged well. That's surprising to me, considering the last few times I fired up games like Bases Loaded, Baseball Stars, and the Super Mario games I had a blast. I think there can be a case made that the NES is the best system for baseball period. We all know where it ranks for platforming. Genres like those never age. That's already more titles than I'd rather play for the PS1 with it's horrifying, headache inducing pathetic excuse for graphics. If it wasn't packaged with the PS2, the system would have aged 10 times worse and be thought of as a time and a place. Sort of like how people are characterizing the NES. Also, I think there is something to be said for the nostalgia factor with old games. With older reviews, I'm always interested in what year it came out, what other games were like at the time, etc. I find the era from 93-95 fascinating and even if I were to be playing a game I've never played before, it takes me back. I love the reviews and compare them to other games from the era. Understandably (barely, lol), there's some posters who look back on the N64 with extremely fond memories. 

One thing I will say is my opinion on the Megaman games for the NES. I personally think both Megaman 2 and 3 deserve higher grades. I'd also go as far as to say Megaman 4 does too. Megaman 1 and 6 grades seem about right. ...But Megaman 5's grade? I'm sorry, but it does not deserve as high of a rating as the other Megaman games. Lazy level designs, lazy bossfights, re-used powerups, generic music, and a rush coil that doesn't work properly doesn't deserve a B+ in my opinion. Megaman 5 is about a C. It's still fun to an extent, but I'd argue it's the weakest of the NES Megaman games.