People, I have a question, if you always, and you ALWAYS complain, about reviews, about them being too good or too bad or another game got a fraction of a point more, why do you even pay attention to them?
Gamespot Gives The Simpson's Arcade Game A 3 Out Of 10...
- Thread starter Kyle Donovan
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Gamespot seems to have fundamentally misunderstood the point of this game. Namely, that it's fun.
Isn't that what matters? It's short, yes, and it doesn't offer much, but that's because it sheds all of the bells and whistles that modern games haves grown to have to offer an experience that is pure, diluted, fun.
I've bought this game, and I've already spent some time playing it with friends during the Super Bowl Halftime Show, and it was still just as fun as it was back in the day.
Giving a game a 3/10 just because it doesn't have any of the superfluous extra content that we've come to take for granted is just bullshit. The game is fun. That's all that matters, because the entire purpose of a game is to have fun with it.
Isn't that what matters? It's short, yes, and it doesn't offer much, but that's because it sheds all of the bells and whistles that modern games haves grown to have to offer an experience that is pure, diluted, fun.
I've bought this game, and I've already spent some time playing it with friends during the Super Bowl Halftime Show, and it was still just as fun as it was back in the day.
Giving a game a 3/10 just because it doesn't have any of the superfluous extra content that we've come to take for granted is just bullshit. The game is fun. That's all that matters, because the entire purpose of a game is to have fun with it.
Sounds like he just didn't care for it because it didn't age well? By today's gaming standards, this game is pretty bad. Repetitive gameplay, stupid nonsense story, not great graphics, no deep gameplay mechanics.
But...what else could they do? If they had tried to revamp the game (like Turtles in Time), they would have probably messed it up (like Turtles in Time). Plus, it is an arcade game. From the 90's. That right there should tell you if you're going to like it or not. No review is going to change your opinion on it.
As for me, I'm going to get this. My brother and I used to always play this game whenever we went skating. I think we always got beaten by the second boss. That was as far as we ever got. Then, one day, the game broke at Chucke E Cheese. If you died, you just had to push start and the game thought you put a quarter in and it let you continue. We finally got to beat it.
But...what else could they do? If they had tried to revamp the game (like Turtles in Time), they would have probably messed it up (like Turtles in Time). Plus, it is an arcade game. From the 90's. That right there should tell you if you're going to like it or not. No review is going to change your opinion on it.
As for me, I'm going to get this. My brother and I used to always play this game whenever we went skating. I think we always got beaten by the second boss. That was as far as we ever got. Then, one day, the game broke at Chucke E Cheese. If you died, you just had to push start and the game thought you put a quarter in and it let you continue. We finally got to beat it.
I've never played a single arcade game more than I played Simpsons. And for many years I kept hoping for a console port.
Now that it's here, I refuse to touch it, because I know it's likely unplayable, and I want to keep my nostalgia intact.
Now that it's here, I refuse to touch it, because I know it's likely unplayable, and I want to keep my nostalgia intact.
Seems far.
I want to know how much I'l enjoy the game, not how much I would have enjoyed it "back in the day".
I want to know how much I'l enjoy the game, not how much I would have enjoyed it "back in the day".
I am confused... why do they even bother reviewing nostalgia-driven games originally made 20 years ago? I bought it (played it a bunch in the arcades as a kid) and had fun with it. Yeah, its pretty shit now but I played it with some who had never done so when it first came out and they had a good 30 minutes of fun. That's all that it promises in the end.
Yes, now perfect emulation is only worth three marks out of ten.
BECAUSE UNSPOILT NOSTALGIA IS WRONG!
Seriously, if I had any faith in Gamespot, this would have destroyed it. How old is this reviewer? 18?
But what's this, Tom McShea?
Ah, an axe to grind.Goldeneye Review said:
Would you mind explaining your 6.0 score for Green Lantern [http://uk.gamespot.com/green-lantern-rise-of-the-manhunters/reviews/green-lantern-rise-of-the-manhunters-review-6319903/] then? given the same criticisms are valid?
Simpsons: Fairly average Final Fight Clone with some interesting team-ups. 5.5 I'd say.
3.0 is just a crapdown on nostalgia. Would you give Xybots '3' for the same reasons?
No, I'm pretty sure "It's Gamespot" can excuse pretty much anything, or at least provide a semi-valid reason.NuclearShadow said:
Obviously from a nostalgia standpoint, this game is amazing, but even without past experience, a 3 seems pretty harsh. I haven't played the port, though... maybe it's totally broken. I wouldn't know. I'd love to say review scores don't matter either way, but I'm not so blithely unaware that tons of people religiously follow the idea of a standardized grading system for videogames. Oh well.
Not going to lie I grew up playing those games when I was young like most of you. But playing them now they didn't age well at all. You can be mad they didn't give a game you loved a high score, but to be fair all beat 'em ups like it are not that good now a days.
I kind of disagree with the rating of 3 but overall these games that are just ports of old games shouldnt earn any kind of score, just let the buyer know if it is a good port or not. Its unfair to judge this game against games of today, and the people that are interested in this game are the ones that already played years ago.StriderShinryu said:
Just give me a seperate score for "Port Quality" and we are good to go.
I guess people have given up on the XBLA if it's not braid, bastion or castle crashers it's not worth buying?
to be honest I'm a little happy to finally see a video game reviewed lower than a 5 but I'm not entirely sure it was deserved.
TMNT turtles in time got a whole new HD overhaul when it hit the XBLA and no one liked it. This one doesn't get an HD overhaul and it gets condemned for it? Also, don't tell me you need to overhaul the combat system, it might be lacking but you don't try to fix something that isn't broken. Especially when most of your sales are coming from nostalgia.
to be honest I'm a little happy to finally see a video game reviewed lower than a 5 but I'm not entirely sure it was deserved.
TMNT turtles in time got a whole new HD overhaul when it hit the XBLA and no one liked it. This one doesn't get an HD overhaul and it gets condemned for it? Also, don't tell me you need to overhaul the combat system, it might be lacking but you don't try to fix something that isn't broken. Especially when most of your sales are coming from nostalgia.
Yea.evilneko said:
I'm just guessing the company that released Simpsons Arcade doesn't spend too much of it's marketing budget on Gamespot.
Then why is it that I can still play Streets of Rage and Golden Axe, on my own, today, and still have a great time playing them.BoredRolePlayer said:
I believe the last time I played Golden Axe was a few months back, it's still a great game to me, rose tinted nostalgia doesn't come into it.
Wanted to bold that because that is another issue with people who read reviews. A game you like doesn't mean it's a game everyone likes. For example in my group of friends I like Disgaea and Shin Megami Tensei games and no one else in my group of friends cares at all. But I'm not going to go on and on about how great it is or fun, it's something I like and can get into. Same with reviewers, maybe they didn't like it and gave it said score. If you don't like what a reviewer said about a game you like fine deal with it, it won't change how you feel about the game.Jazoni89 said:
I think most beat'em ups are boring and very repetitive (even more so alone), yet you think they are fun to play. See what I'm getting at? I sure don't throw a fit when games I like get low scores are passed over (I love Saints Row yet my friends think it's a lame GTA, but I'm not gonna make them play I just keep playing it like always).
Except you are wrong, Turtles in Time wasn't a port, it was redone and lost all of its nostalgia cred, that is why everyone hated it. This game will be fine since it is just a straight port. The one and only reason this was released was for people who remember playing it in arcades in the 90s, it isn't for new fans. The review is stupid, people who are playing this aren't doing it for cutting edge gameplay, they are doing it to relive part of their childhood.Rednog said:
Well, that's not really a fair statement as in the vast majority of reviews of games like this they do explicitly state whether or not it's a good port or not. It's not in a velvet roped box of it's own, but it is there.josemlopes said:
If you're going to be scoring a game in the first place, it should be in comparison to, at least, games within the same genre. Even though side scrolling beat 'em ups aren't anywhere near as common as they used to be, there are still some pretty stellar examples that offer much much more than a quick and dirty port like The Simpsons does. If titles like Scott Pilgrim The Game, Castle Crashers and Guardian Heroes are at the top of the class, a game that offers as little as The Simpsons does is only right to be scored much lower in comparison.