"Retro" reviews by youngsters...

[elvis]

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

Amen to that.

[Erik_Twice]

Reviews are not entirely subjective unless you think that sloppy controls, actors with a wooden face, plot holes, lots of unwinnable situations, horrible graphics that don't allow you to know what you are doing, etc are subjective.


A good review is a good review, no matter who does it.

[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.

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

oh yes, this too

[coastercrazy10]

When people say '07 was one of the greatest gaming years ever, i flat out don't get it.

considering the Gamecube and GBA were killed off in 2007, I'd say it was one of the worst gaming years ever.

lol ZING

With regards to this topic...I'm about to turn 19, but I can't help but feeling generalized with the rest of the "kids" who get the bad rap. I can understand the hate the crappy quality videos with no premeditation and stupid reviews get, but there are some genuinely great "kids" out there on youtube. With that website, it's all about wading through the crap to get to the gems. There's good stuff out there, and, as mentioned before, as long as it's done well/objectively it shouldn't matter how old or young the reviewer is.

Plus, the fact that there are kids out there getting in to the retro gaming scene is great news for retro collectors, because that means more games like NSMBWii, Goldeneye, Deathsmiles, Metal Slug Anthology, Marvel vs. Capcom 3, Rocket Knight, Contra IV, etc. will keep coming out. After all, these "kids" are taking up a HUGE market share in the industry and most smart developers will put out what the majority share of the market wants. Even if their reviews are crap for the most part (especially on youtube), the interest alone will spawn new throwback games to keep us entertained.

-CC10

[I Feel Asleep!!]

Yeah, I'm not particularly fond of "retro" reviews of old games done by kiddos who weren't around to play them when they first came out...But then again, it can be a little refreshing to hear the opinions of those who aren't blinded by nostalgic love of the games they grew up with. I know that I'm REALLY fond of quite a few retro games not because they're that amazing but because they have so many memories attached to them...So I really wouldn't put much stock into a review of such a game done by me. It's just gonna gush the hell out of the game and overlook a lot of the genuine flaws that gamers who don't have hearts in their eyes for those games WILL see. So yeah, youngsters reviewing older games isn't always a bad thing. The only thing I don't really like is when a kid tries to act like they DO have all these fond memories of retro games when they (the kiddos) clearly are too young to have been able to experience those quite the same way older gamers did...It just feels fake is what I mean. Plus they remind me of AVGN wannabes. AVGN copycats/wannabes of any age = FAIL.

[elvis]

Reviews are not entirely subjective unless you think that sloppy controls, actors with a wooden face, plot holes, lots of unwinnable situations, horrible graphics that don't allow you to know what you are doing, etc are subjective.

Every single term you've just used is entirely subjective.

"Sloppy" (subjective to preference), "unwinnable" (subjective to skill), "horrible" (a relative adjective by nature).

A good review is a good review, no matter who does it.

A subjective review can still be a good review. Nobody is insisting that subjective = bad, nor that objective = good. The point is reviews are and always will be subjective, and you can't get away from it.

[Erik_Twice]

"unwinnable" (subjective to skill).

No, an unwinnable situation is not based on skill, that's the entire point.

For example. You are playing a game and after 10 hours you discover you are stuck and no matter what you do you can't beat the game because 3 hours ago you should have clicked on a random brick.

You may say: Ah, but sure there were clues? No, there weren't. And no, I'm not making this up, most Sierra games had an awful lot of unwinnable situations and avoiding them was only possible by savescumming and using a guide something unrelated to skill.

Of course anything you do is going to be subjective by definition. But we can all agree that nobody thinks pixel-hunting is a good idea which is not subjective. It is not objective either but it is not subjective.

[Limewater]

And no, I'm not making this up, most Sierra games had an awful lot of unwinnable situations and avoiding them was only possible by savescumming [OR using a guide.

FYP.

I do find the unwinnable situations in old Sierra games to be pretty annoying, but they usually aren't as bad as you describe. I can think of a few particular situations where this comes up, but none that I remember really boil down to pixel hunting-- especially on the older games where pixel hunting wasn't even possible because everything was still on a text parser.

Some were still pretty ridiculous, though. I'm not letting Sierra off the hook.

[Hagane Hiryu]

Yeah, I'm not particularly fond of "retro" reviews of old games done by kiddos who weren't around to play them when they first came out...But then again, it can be a little refreshing to hear the opinions of those who aren't blinded by nostalgic love of the games they grew up with. I know that I'm REALLY fond of quite a few retro games not because they're that amazing but because they have so many memories attached to them...So I really wouldn't put much stock into a review of such a game done by me. It's just gonna gush the hell out of the game and overlook a lot of the genuine flaws that gamers who don't have hearts in their eyes for those games WILL see. So yeah, youngsters reviewing older games isn't always a bad thing. The only thing I don't really like is when a kid tries to act like they DO have all these fond memories of retro games when they (the kiddos) clearly are too young to have been able to experience those quite the same way older gamers did...It just feels fake is what I mean. Plus they remind me of AVGN wannabes. AVGN copycats/wannabes of any age = FAIL.

Okay I have a problem with this. You didn't have to have played the game when it was released to have fond memories of it or for it to be nostalgic. There could be a 4 year old somewhere right now playing Mario Brothers 3 on an old nes and its his first video game he has ever played. Does that mean he can't have fond memories of it or his memories aren't as meaningful as yours when he thinks back on it 15 years from now? The time you play is relative to its release is completely irrelevant.


SMB3 is the first game I can remember playing but I certainly wasn't around when it was released so I guess my memories of it don't count for anything, is that right? Do you think it more likely that kids who were groing up in the 90s were playing the newest consoles or the older ones that their parents or older siblings still had from years before. I personally have never owned a new console more than 2 years after the release. I've only ever owned consoles that were behind the times.

[Hatta]

And no, I'm not making this up, most Sierra games had an awful lot of unwinnable situations and avoiding them was only possible by savescumming and using a guide something unrelated to skill.

This is a great example of how subjective this can be. What you call "savescumming" I call "trial and error" which is a valid gameplay mechanic. Sierra even went out of their way to make deaths entertaining. Savescumming is cheating in a game like nethack where death destroys your saves. In Sierra games the manual advises "save early, save often". It's part of the game.

But we can all agree that nobody thinks pixel-hunting is a good idea which is not subjective. It is not objective either but it is not subjective.

There were actually very few "pixel hunting" problems with Sierra games. The only one that comes to mind (and I've played all the SCI games as far as I know) is a particular map puzzle in PQ3. The areas you need to click on are usually pretty big, and identifiable as object. There were some unwinnable situations, yes. But that's why you keep lots of saves.