Have you noticed that many times we are perhaps unfair in qualifying a video game?
Many times we rate a video game, under the current standard, but not, according to the effect it produced in those years.
I saw, for example, that many rated PONG, from ATARI, with an unfair 2 stars. ATARI's PONG was rated the best video game of the 70's, by far the best video game of 1972.
I think it is always good to talk with love about these video games that gave way to the sweet wonders that we enjoy today.
Greetings to all.
Becoro
The way we rate video games
In general I always consider the release date and the platform a game appeared on when I rate games. But ratings are of course always very subjective. There are games that are groundbreaking but which I still dislike. Space Invaders is such a game. I don't like it and I don't like Space Invaders clones. Its something about the movement of the enemies that go left and right in unison and slowly go downward that is a concept that I don't like in a shooting game. Galaxian was much much better in my opinion. So if I would have to rate Space Invaders it would probably get a lower rating than it would deserve just looking on its impact and importance for arcade games and shooter games.
In general I always consider the release date and the platform a game appeared on when I rate games. But ratings are of course always very subjective. There are games that are groundbreaking but which I still dislike. Space Invaders is such a game. I don't like it and I don't like Space Invaders clones. Its something about the movement of the enemies that go left and right in unison and slowly go downward that is a concept that I don't like in a shooting game. Galaxian was much much better in my opinion. So if I would have to rate Space Invaders it would probably get a lower rating than it would deserve just looking on its impact and importance for arcade games and shooter games.
Thanks for your answer, I think the same, there are many clones of videogames; Personally, I value creativity, be it musical, graphic or the way of playing, always considering the factor of the time; for example, I love "Tunnel Hunt" from 1979, developed by Atari, it's very creative, for the time.
re: re:
Poor ratings for historically important games is one of the reasons I like to include context when I can and in articles or reviews. There's many other very important reasons to include context, and this one actually is kind of minor for me. But still, when I found out about Nolan Bushnell's reasoning for the careful placement of his first pong unit, that is, to attract female players, and the subsequent effects that Nolan Bushnell observed due to the female players of his game. I was very happy to include it in the article. This is one of the contexts that doesn't seem to exist in other videogame databases that I could find on the internet. They either have absolutely no mention of the importance of female players for Pong, or it's a vastly uncontextual and unexplained mention. But according to Nolan Bushnell, female players were always an important part of the plan for Pong, and ended up being a much more important factor than he initially had hoped for.
Personally I really try to keep my ratings relative. Not only relative to the other games of the period but relative to the predecessors and successors to the game as well. In some cases a successor May unfairly prompt me to give a lower rating to a game. But I often notice that a successor game may have an expanded feature that I failed to notice in the preceding game. Which means I might be inclined to give it a better rating. The Zelda series, I think, has done this to my ratings. I also like to consider games of a certain type from all years. Considering the historical relativity in which it was released, is probably the most influential of these for me and nearly all the games I rate. Also I consider the platform it is on. Links Awakening for Game Boy came after Link to the Past for snes. Generally it would be unfair to compare SNES and Game Boy games, without weighting this comparison very low in the overall set of standards. Although in this case the Game Boy game compares very favorably to the SNES game in my view. I also consider the story behind the game. ET for the 2600 gets a few advantages in my view. The programmer was asked to create a Pac-Man clone by the renowned Steven Spielberg. The programer was very disconsent to do as he was told and instead he successfully convince Steven Spielberg that such a game would do a disservice to the quality of his movie. He made a non 2D world for the game, something a lot of people don't realize is that the six screens of the overworld the world can be mapped to the surface of a cube to indicate to a player on how to navigate to where they want to go. In the grand scheme of things these facts don't add up to even a quarter star worth of change in my rating. But I did consider them.
You know it's entirely possible I put way too much thought into it as well.
Personally I really try to keep my ratings relative. Not only relative to the other games of the period but relative to the predecessors and successors to the game as well. In some cases a successor May unfairly prompt me to give a lower rating to a game. But I often notice that a successor game may have an expanded feature that I failed to notice in the preceding game. Which means I might be inclined to give it a better rating. The Zelda series, I think, has done this to my ratings. I also like to consider games of a certain type from all years. Considering the historical relativity in which it was released, is probably the most influential of these for me and nearly all the games I rate. Also I consider the platform it is on. Links Awakening for Game Boy came after Link to the Past for snes. Generally it would be unfair to compare SNES and Game Boy games, without weighting this comparison very low in the overall set of standards. Although in this case the Game Boy game compares very favorably to the SNES game in my view. I also consider the story behind the game. ET for the 2600 gets a few advantages in my view. The programmer was asked to create a Pac-Man clone by the renowned Steven Spielberg. The programer was very disconsent to do as he was told and instead he successfully convince Steven Spielberg that such a game would do a disservice to the quality of his movie. He made a non 2D world for the game, something a lot of people don't realize is that the six screens of the overworld the world can be mapped to the surface of a cube to indicate to a player on how to navigate to where they want to go. In the grand scheme of things these facts don't add up to even a quarter star worth of change in my rating. But I did consider them.
You know it's entirely possible I put way too much thought into it as well.
re: re: re:
Jajajajaja youre right
Poor ratings for historically important games is one of the reasons I like to include context when I can and in articles or reviews. There's many other very important reasons to include context, and this one actually is kind of minor for me. But still, when I found out about Nolan Bushnell's reasoning for the careful placement of his first pong unit, that is, to attract female players, and the subsequent effects that Nolan Bushnell observed due to the female players of his game. I was very happy to include it in the article. This is one of the contexts that doesn't seem to exist in other videogame databases that I could find on the internet. They either have absolutely no mention of the importance of female players for Pong, or it's a vastly uncontextual and unexplained mention. But according to Nolan Bushnell, female players were always an important part of the plan for Pong, and ended up being a much more important factor than he initially had hoped for.
Personally I really try to keep my ratings relative. Not only relative to the other games of the period but relative to the predecessors and successors to the game as well. In some cases a successor May unfairly prompt me to give a lower rating to a game. But I often notice that a successor game may have an expanded feature that I failed to notice in the preceding game. Which means I might be inclined to give it a better rating. The Zelda series, I think, has done this to my ratings. I also like to consider games of a certain type from all years. Considering the historical relativity in which it was released, is probably the most influential of these for me and nearly all the games I rate. Also I consider the platform it is on. Links Awakening for Game Boy came after Link to the Past for snes. Generally it would be unfair to compare SNES and Game Boy games, without weighting this comparison very low in the overall set of standards. Although in this case the Game Boy game compares very favorably to the SNES game in my view. I also consider the story behind the game. ET for the 2600 gets a few advantages in my view. The programmer was asked to create a Pac-Man clone by the renowned Steven Spielberg. The programer was very disconsent to do as he was told and instead he successfully convince Steven Spielberg that such a game would do a disservice to the quality of his movie. He made a non 2D world for the game, something a lot of people don't realize is that the six screens of the overworld the world can be mapped to the surface of a cube to indicate to a player on how to navigate to where they want to go. In the grand scheme of things these facts don't add up to even a quarter star worth of change in my rating. But I did consider them.
You know it's entirely possible I put way too much thought into it as well.
Personally I really try to keep my ratings relative. Not only relative to the other games of the period but relative to the predecessors and successors to the game as well. In some cases a successor May unfairly prompt me to give a lower rating to a game. But I often notice that a successor game may have an expanded feature that I failed to notice in the preceding game. Which means I might be inclined to give it a better rating. The Zelda series, I think, has done this to my ratings. I also like to consider games of a certain type from all years. Considering the historical relativity in which it was released, is probably the most influential of these for me and nearly all the games I rate. Also I consider the platform it is on. Links Awakening for Game Boy came after Link to the Past for snes. Generally it would be unfair to compare SNES and Game Boy games, without weighting this comparison very low in the overall set of standards. Although in this case the Game Boy game compares very favorably to the SNES game in my view. I also consider the story behind the game. ET for the 2600 gets a few advantages in my view. The programmer was asked to create a Pac-Man clone by the renowned Steven Spielberg. The programer was very disconsent to do as he was told and instead he successfully convince Steven Spielberg that such a game would do a disservice to the quality of his movie. He made a non 2D world for the game, something a lot of people don't realize is that the six screens of the overworld the world can be mapped to the surface of a cube to indicate to a player on how to navigate to where they want to go. In the grand scheme of things these facts don't add up to even a quarter star worth of change in my rating. But I did consider them.
You know it's entirely possible I put way too much thought into it as well.