"Retro" reviews by youngsters...

[final fight cd]

as long as reviewer isn't being angry or isn't over dramatic about how bad the game is, i am fine with it. there are just one too many video retro game reviews - whether young or old - that copy off the success of the angry video game nerd. and they all suck.

[hardrrocker]

I grew up on the n64 and snes and I'm a minor and have great respect for the games.

[lisalover1]

I'm 16 [but I'm turning 17 tomorrow], and I definitely have a respect about retro games. The first console I ever owned was a SNES, and I still have the same system. I wasn't around for the earlier years of gaming, and I will admit that I'm not the best suited to be called an "expert" of the eras, and I'll even admit that I don't share the same bond with those consoles that other people share who were around for their heyday. However, I don't think it would be right to dismiss my opinion on games for earlier consoles, as I still have a great appreciation for them.

[Mr.White555]

Bah! Old people being overly nostalgic or young people having fake nostalgia, which is better? Neither. I think its funny how people hold their nostalgia so dear like it could be damaged or something. BAH! If the game is a GOOD game then it should be good regardless of the age or time someone plays it.

Reviewing in general is full of bullshit. It's someone trying to be objective about something entirely subjective.

[J T]

A good reviewer is a good reviewer, regardless of age. I like to hear from both those of us that were around at the time, and from those that look at these old games for the first time, but in an era where better graphics, better sound, and better data processing and storage capacity are possible.

If they don't know how to do a review though, then I don't really have an interest in their opinion.

[FiftyDollarCurse]

The more pertinent question is why do you giving a whooping funt what anyone, regardless of their age, race or background, thinks about a game. Play it and decide if you like or dislike it all by yourself. You're a big boy now and we think you can handle it.

For example, I played a game called Tak and the Great Juju Challenge for the PS2 today. I have never heard or read anything about this game or license (I'm still not sure if it was a cartoon) and I thought it was pretty really good. Also, Silpheed: The Lost Planet, a game I've never seen pimped by anyone ever, even by hardcore shmup fans, I thought was downright rad.

How many film critics alive today do you think were alive to see the first screenings of Citizen Kane? Let alone were cogent enough to form an informed opinion of it? If anything, someone who isn't colored by the hype and bullshit of EGM April '94 and SEGA! commercials probably has a more legitimate opinion of Sonic & Knuckles than someone who is.

Grand Theft Auto IV got a lot of perfect scores when it came out. You'd be very hard pressed to find someone who would describe that game as perfect today. and that was only 3 (4?) years ago.

Think for yourself.

[AppleQueso]

The couple of folks saying that reviewing in general is stupid or whatever seem to be forgetting a few things.

Number one, no review has ever tried to be "objective". The entire point is that its subjective, and number two, games aren't free. It's an aide in making informed purchasing decisions.

On top of that, a good review will give me a better idea of how a game plays and how its elements work together than even a gameplay video would. That's especially important when it comes to deciding if you think you'll like a game or not.

Lastly, there are a LOT of games out there if you haven't noticed. Reviews can help highlight the ones that might've gone totally unnoticed otherwise, and sort the greats from the crap.

[Flake]

The quality of the review is really contingent on the goal of the review. If some 15 year old wants to review Super Mario Land 2 with the goal of comparing unfavorably with Gears of War or something else, then yeah, the kid has no real business reviewing the game.

However, if the goal of the reviewer is to answer questions about the game based on the games own merit, then the age of the reviewer shouldn't matter. If I saw a 15 year old review Kirby's Adventure and reference its standing against other NES games, its relative technological achievements and the sheer genius of the power up systems...well, I'd be quite willing to also listen to their complaints about glitches, slow-down, and any other issues.

But in general, this isn't the case. Sadly.

[Kevman]

I'm 17, but I remember playing Nintendo and Super Nintendo. I also lived during the entire 32-bit era so I wouldn't say younger viewers don't have nostalgia about older systems.

[noiseredux]

The couple of folks saying that reviewing in general is stupid or whatever seem to be forgetting a few things.

Number one, no review has ever tried to be "objective". The entire point is that its subjective, and number two, games aren't free. It's an aide in making informed purchasing decisions.

On top of that, a good review will give me a better idea of how a game plays and how its elements work together than even a gameplay video would. That's especially important when it comes to deciding if you think you'll like a game or not.

Lastly, there are a LOT of games out there if you haven't noticed. Reviews can help highlight the ones that might've gone totally unnoticed otherwise, and sort the greats from the crap.

not to mention the fact that when I'm interested in something, I like to read about it.