I was planning to write reviews for a [very] long time. I'm still working on my first review, which I started back in August 2013 or even earlier, I think. But I'm always too lazy...
So, I can't say much about how I do it, but how I would do it.
In my opinion it is very important to include the possibilities of the time when the game came out. I mean, you can't rate an NES game with awesome graphics (for the console) bad in graphics, just because lots of new games have ultra-detailed, high-definition graphics. Compared to some games, this NES game probably wouldn't be even rated a 1 then.
Same goes for sound of course.
These things must always be compared to other games of that time. But it depends. If you play a new game, but it has retro graphics, it is not very easy to rate the graphics, for example. Then it's pretty much a question of your personal taste, too. And then there are games like puzzle games which don't need very special graphics, because they're perfectly fitting.
I think a video game reviewer should always try to find the right balance of how much influence the time of the release and how much influence the genre or kind of game on the final score of each game should have; usually rating most games compared to similar games of the time, unless they're - like I wrote - not comparable in genre or kind of game.
The story, though, is something that can be rated like today's games. Even though most games that were produced before 16-bit era hadn't enough space for very good story plots, leading them to be rated low in story. But that's a good thing, because that means people reading that review don't expect a way better story than it actually is.
But yeah, for categories like sound and graphics, factors like the time the game came out are very important, as long as you mention in the review that it is compared to other games of that time. Because old graphics and sound aren't comparable to what is possible today.
That's how I think of it.
I was planning to write reviews for a [very] long time. I'm still working on my first review, which I started back in August 2013 or even earlier, I think. But I'm always too lazy...
So, I can't say much about how I do it, but how I would do it.
In my opinion it is very important to include the possibilities of the time when the game came out. I mean, you can't rate an NES game with awesome graphics (for the console) bad in graphics, just because lots of new games have ultra-detailed, high-definition graphics. Compared to some games, this NES game probably wouldn't be even rated a 1 then.
Same goes for sound of course.
These things must always be compared to other games of that time. But it depends. If you play a new game, but it has retro graphics, it is not very easy to rate the graphics, for example. Then it's pretty much a question of your personal taste, too. And then there are games like puzzle games which don't need very special graphics, because they're perfectly fitting.
I think a video game reviewer should always try to find the right balance of how much influence the time of the release and how much influence the genre or kind of game on the final score of each game should have; usually rating most games compared to similar games of the time, unless they're - like I wrote - not comparable in genre or kind of game.
The story, though, is something that can be rated like today's games. Even though most games that were produced before 16-bit era hadn't enough space for very good story plots, leading them to be rated low in story. But that's a good thing, because that means people reading that review don't expect a way better story than it actually is.
But yeah, for categories like sound and graphics, factors like the time the game came out are very important, as long as you mention in the review that it is compared to other games of that time. Because old graphics and sound aren't comparable to what is possible today.
That's how I think of it. 
User Notice 
Ryroe is Offline
| ID: 955405 | 367 Words
Ryroe is Offline
