Gamespot Gives The Simpson's Arcade Game A 3 Out Of 10...

[DiMono]

You mean a quarter-munching game from 1990 doesn't hold up in today's gaming world? I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!

They took a game that wasn't cutting edge when it was new, and rereleased it as-is to a culture of gamers who are 20 years further along than it is. Of course it's going to get bad reviews! The only surprise here is that anyone is surprised.

 

[Phlakes]

You should write them a letter about how you don't like that they didn't like it.

You should tell them to like it more. Maybe then, they will like it.

Because that's how it works.

I don't know why, but this is one of my favorite posts in recent memory. I might have to bookmark this thread to hang on to it.

OT: *facepalm. Not only are you completely ignoring the fact that it could just be a bad port, like everyone's said, it's a 20 year old arcade game, the only thing wrong with the review is if it should even exist. But it does exist, and it's completely justified.

 

[lacktheknack]

You should write them a letter about how you don't like that they didn't like it.

You should tell them to like it more. Maybe then, they will like it.

Because that's how it works.

This is the most beautifully passive-aggressive posts I've read in a loooong time. It's lovely.

OT: Maybe... just maybe... it wasn't a great game?

 

[FoolKiller]

Meh, same thing happened with Turtles in Time, people get fueled by nostalgia and are hyped up but after you've been spoiled by a generation or so of newer games going back to the primitive arcade styles its like wow how did we every find this to be amazing?

Heh... I still love playing some of those old games. I still find it a great experience to play Turtles or X-Men.

One thing I think is that it is worth trying to see if it suits what you like. The score is silly because its useless to have a scoring system anyways.

How do you take an article's scoring seriously when the first sentence contains an apparent grammatical error? Couldn't anyone be bothered to proof-read it?

 

[Terramax]

People still take Gamespot seriously? That is what seems odd to me.

Why not? They're more honest than most other highly commercial game sites, despite that Kane & Lynch debackle a few years back.

On topic, I don't see what the problem is. In this day and age, we expect more for our money. Besides nostalgia, there really is no reason to buy this. It looks dated, there's no depth, there's only about 2 moves. And remember, this is an arcade game. It was only meant for people to play once or twice whilst trying to burn some time.

When you've got games like Guardian Heroes on the scene, there's really no reason to bother with such a shallow experience, unless to relive memories, or you're an obsessive Simpsons fan.

 

[GoaThief]

I never really dug this game back then, so I don't expect it's improved with age. It's been years since I played Simpsons Arcade but my gut feeling is I'd have given it a 5/10 back then (medicore, only play it with a friend if they really wanted to) so accounting for the lack of modernisation and the like a 3/10 is understandable.

I never put much stock in reviews anyhow, just give me some details about the game and I'll decide for myself.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Well its not that good. Just like a lot of games back then it might have been a good game for its time but now it something anyone could make in Gamemaker.
EDIT: I am kind of annoyed that they said that there are few modern enhancements as a negative but consistently give Mario high scores.

 

[GoaThief]

When you think about it, side scrolling Mario games have great gravity physics, better than a lot of newer games in fact. It would be folly to deviate too far away from the basic premise really.

 

[zombieshark6666]

I would give it less than that. It's ugly, boring, simplistic, useless. And they want 10$ for it. In a world where Scott Pilgrim exists, that shit is just embarrassing. I'd ask for my bandwidth back, but it was only 18 mb. Now, if you want to mention nostalgia, then that's fine.

 

[him over there]

I commend them on their honesty and I can't really argue that is wasn't that great but they're really reaching for low hanging fruit in some places. Like complaining about the story, It's a means to an ends story to be used as a framing device. I know this is frowned upon in this day and age but this really isn't that kind of game.

 

[Lunar Templar]

Fair enough I see no reason why it should merit a higher score.

no doubt. me and a buddy sit down and flattened it and looked at each other like 'why dose every one say this is so good?'. its a competent brawler, and that's all

 

[Something Amyss]

Fair enough I see no reason why it should merit a higher score.

Indeed. It was the weakest of the games like it, and it hasn't particularly aged well. I don't see why it should get a particularly strong score. I'm not saying it's awful, but my fondest memories are soaked in nostalgia. Playing the game kind of wrings the nostalgia right out of it.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I don't see how this game merits anything higher, am I missing something?

 

[mental_looney]

Shurg I tried it and thought it was pretty terrible it should not be 800 points.
I never played the original so was just looking at it from the demo.

If it was like 240 os something points maybe but it's not going to do much for anyone with no nostalgia for the original.

 

[hazabaza1]

Well... maybe it was shit?
Just sayin' you know. Arcade side-scrollers never were that great.

 

[Quiet Stranger]

It totally deserves a 10. To this day I'd still sink so many quarters in if I saw it at a arcade or someplace like that.