Using emulators for reviews...Good or bad?

[CGQuarterly]

I voted 'no' only because "Absolutely never ever ever" was not an option. I write a lot of game review, and am always checking the local used game store for any games that I don't have just so that I can review them. I also keep an eye out for consoles that I don't own, so that I can open myself up to a whole new library of games to review. The only purpose an emulator serves to a game reviewer is as a means of taking screenshots. Sorry if this offends the OP, but anyone who thinks that it's OK to use an emulator to review games shouldn't be reviewing games. Yeah, you aren't a millionaire with every game ever made, but you can slowly buy games to review. If you become a good reviewer with a decent following, then you can probably get people to lend you copies of their rarer games so that you can review and then return them. The fact that you used emulators to review classic consoles is just ridiculous. Don't have the consoles? Then just don't write the article. Write something else based on what you have on-hand. I have enough games to keep me busy for a long while. I still think about what kind of stuff I want to do in the future, and generally keep notes about it, but I stick with what I've got.

 

Chris

[JamesD]

There are several things I see wrong with using an emulator for a review.

As already mentioned, differences in controllers changes the experience.

Sound emulation seems hit or miss on emulators as does speed, support of special hardware features (changing graphics modes during screen refresh, etc).

And one of the most important things is poor implementation of color artifacting on NTSC machines. Some games look great on a real machine but pretty blah on an emulator. Tandy CoCo and Apple II games heavily use artifacting and the emulation just isn't the same.

 

I do think it's a good idea to test a game on real hardware AND emulation to give people an idea of how well a game stands up under emulation vs the real hardware.

[maibock]

People take classic gaming reviews way too seriously - It should be for fun, shouldn't it? It's not like the reader is looking to see if they should shell out $60 bucks for a game they wish to spend hours upon hours in playing. No, mostly it's just for fun, nostalgia and maybe(hopefully?) a laugh or two. It really isn't all that important, it's an opinion anyway. If you wish to be thorough and mention the hardware you've played it on, then fine. If you enjoy the game and have fun doing reviews, who the fuck should care if it's on an emulator or the real thing?

[VectorGamer]

I think reviews should be taken seriously. At times their opinions determine whether I should purchase the respective title they are reviewing.

[maibock]

I think reviews should be taken seriously. At times their opinions determine whether I should purchase the respective title they are reviewing.

 

So a crappy review of a game 30 years old will help you decide if you want to spend the 50 cents or not?

[VectorGamer]

I think reviews should be taken seriously. At times their opinions determine whether I should purchase the respective title they are reviewing.

 

So a crappy review of a game 30 years old will help you decide if you want to spend the 50 cents or not?

 

Obviously I'm terrible in locating individual carts for 50 cents.

 

I base credibility with a respective reviewer based on a good percentage of reviews that I agree with for games I am familiar with. So, in an instance where I've never heard of a game, I can go to videogamecritic.net or Weis' book and get an idea on game play and how good or bad it is. If it's a clunker, I'm not going to play it and therefore not buy it.

 

But, all in all if someone is going to review games then they will lose readership if they are not sincere in what they are doing. If a reviewer continually pans games that I think are picks, I'm not going to feel they are credible.

 

Why would one bother to review games otherwise?

[maibock]

 

But, all in all if someone is going to review games then they will lose readership if they are not sincere in what they are doing. If a reviewer continually pans games that I think are picks, I'm not going to feel they are credible.

 

Why would one bother to review games otherwise?

 

For fun! They're old games! Most people who read classic game reviews aren't necessarily looking to buy - It might be to rekindle an old memory, or to share a laugh, maybe a clever insight into a game, that they've loved for years.

 

Sure there's a narrow market for reviews of games on actual hardware with SERIOUS comments(yawn) - and that's great! But don't go off and tell someone they shouldn't do a review simply because they don't have the console(or the game, even!) That's being silly and a bore. Plenty of room for all types of reviewers in the classic gaming scene.

[Bill Loguidice]

As long as you make clear all of the qualifications regarding the review, i.e., "I'll be using emulator x today", then it really shouldn't matter. There are certainly other factors that should be mentioned, like type of controller(s) used, etc., even when using the real hardware, particularly when a specific area - like control - is something discussed during the review, especially when it impacts the reviewer's opinion one way or the other. In other words, full disclosure should be the norm when you're using anything except a truly stock setup.

 

My personal preference is always to use the real hardware, but I do realize not everyone wants to maintain a collection like mine. I still can respect their reviews/opinions even if they are using "just" emulation.

[VectorGamer]

 

For fun! They're old games! Most people who read classic game reviews aren't necessarily looking to buy - It might be to rekindle an old memory, or to share a laugh, maybe a clever insight into a game, that they've loved for years.

 

 

I agree - I'll read a review for e.g. Pac-Man to get a laugh at someone else picking it apart. At times I will pick up a game, play it and read the review after the fact to see how others feel about a particular game.

 

But, I will also check out reviews before e.g. buying a Craigslist lot of games to see if the titles I do not have are worthy of consideration. So, there may be an instance, as was recently, where I plop down $20 for 25 carts with half of them being duplicates I want to know if the others are worthy.

 

Sure there's a narrow market for reviews of games on actual hardware with SERIOUS comments(yawn) - and that's great! But don't go off and tell someone they shouldn't do a review simply because they don't have the console(or the game, even!) That's being silly and a bore. Plenty of room for all types of reviewers in the classic gaming scene.

 

The reviewers need not be dry but I have to think most (if not all) are sincere with the content of their review.

 

As far as emulation, I think when you review the opinions in this thread you see arguments for and against it - maybe even split right down the middle. I think the controversy surrounds rating a respective controls through an emulator versus using the stock controllers supplied with the actual hardware.

 

And another good point brought up by Bill_Loguidice is disclosing if third party controllers were used. This can actually be good info if a specific controller is more suited for a particular game.

[DaytonaUSA]

Hell No!

 

Not only are you losing the feeling of the game by playing it on a PC, you're losing parts of the game that most likely the emulator isn't doing correctly.

 

Like stated above, I hate it when reviewers review Virtual Boy games after playing it on an emulator. How is that supposed to give you the feeling you're supposed to get when you play the game?

 

Also, Sega Saturn can't be emulated. Any classic game review site that doesn't review Saturn games, is automatically not worth visiting for me.

[CGQuarterly]

Hell No!

 

Not only are you losing the feeling of the game by playing it on a PC, you're losing parts of the game that most likely the emulator isn't doing correctly.

 

Like stated above, I hate it when reviewers review Virtual Boy games after playing it on an emulator. How is that supposed to give you the feeling you're supposed to get when you play the game?

 

Also, Sega Saturn can't be emulated. Any classic game review site that doesn't review Saturn games, is automatically not worth visiting for me.

 

The Saturn can be emulated. I use a Saturn emulator to take the screen shots for my reviews (but I only play the games on actual hardware.)

 

Chris

[maibock]

For shits and giggles, where are some of these very serious, straight forward, actual hardware only, reviews taking place?

 

I'd like to check them out.. maybe I'm missing out on something.

[CGQuarterly]

Why are the only two choices either having reviews using emulators or "very serious, straight forward" reviews? There's nothing wrong being a purist and only wanting to review games using the real hardware (or only wanting to read such reviews). There are subtle differences that may not be noticeable during casual play but present themselves under the scrutiny of playing a game for the purpose of review. If you don't agree, then that's fine, but you seem to me to be belittling the idea that some people think differently. While the vast majority of classic games don't cost $60, enough of them cost a lot more than 50 cents that someone might want to read a review before shelling out the money. I think that using emulation to review a game says a lot about the reviewer and how seriously they take what they are doing, and if they don't take it seriously then why should I read their review?

 

Videogamecritic.net is my favorite review site. They guy writes really concise reviews that some people will probably not care for, but his love for video games is obvious and all of his reviews are done using the real thing.

 

Chris

[+thegoldenband]

I'm a bit surprised at the level of purism being advocated in this thread. I totally agree, of course, that consoles with distinctive controllers or display methods can lose a lot via emulation, but a good reviewer is usually bright enough to figure out whether gameplay has been impacted. For many consoles, emulation is sufficiently accurate, and controllers are sufficiently standard, that there's really no significant issue with 90-99% of titles.

 

Certainly, I appreciate systematic, purist reviews that look into every detail of a game, but I also appreciate more casual or offbeat approaches that emphasize humor, comparison, or other themes. Also, I don't like the idea that a person's disposable income, i.e. their ability to buy potentially expensive retro gear, should be taken as evidence of their seriousness! Is someone who can afford to buy the super-rare Neo Geo cart really a better or more serious reviewer, a priori, than someone who plays it via emulation?

 

Basically, when it comes to reviews, I'm more interested in enjoyment and insight than in purity or seriousness. If a person can offer valuable insights or information while playing via emulation, great. It's a drag if flaws in the emulation undermine their review, but it's also a drag if they have nothing interesting to say, or if it's clear that they don't approach certain kinds of games with goodwill. I appreciate the Videogamecritic, and many of his reviews are spot-on, but he's a fairly impatient gamer and often misses the point with cerebral or quirky games, and that makes his site less useful for me. For those games, I'd rather read a review by someone using emulation, but who "gets" the game.

[VectorGamer]

People take classic gaming reviews way too seriously - It should be for fun, shouldn't it?

 

I want to clarify - when I said that the reviews should be taken "seriously" it was in the sense of accountability. Unless someone is a knucklehead, I believe the majority of reviewers are going to be true in their evaluations. I'm not saying that seriousness meaning "lacks humor" or the level of seriousness is based on authentic gaming hardware being used in the review.

 

I'll give you an example of where emulation does not work if you're going to evaluate controls. MAME Pepper II using either the keyboard or Gravis Gamepad - the control is horrible. I then ran it on an arcade control panel and it runs flawlessly. Why? Because the controls on the control panel are close to the stock controls that the game was designed for.

[Herbarius]

I chose the fourth option (Only as long as certain aspects of the review are clearly marked "Incomplete Due to Lack of Proper Hardware"), because this most closly resembles my opinion in this matter, however I'd like to make some notes.

 

The most important part is, that the reviewer did the research, is fully aware he is shooting the footage or even judging the game on an Emulator and not the real system. He should know what differences there are for the hardware in general (not only including the system in itself but the CRT TV as the intended screen) and know incompatibilities for the game he/she reviews in particular. If possible he should try to at least look at the game on the real hardware, if possible, like when a friend owns the system. In the review he should be honest about using an emulator and also - especially when he uses video - point out differences to the real hardware, regardless of either how slight or how obvious they might seem. How he states it is up to the reviewer, but it should be made clear. In case of youtube videos, just putting it in the video description is not a very good idea, however acceptable if one forgot to mention it in the video itself and wants to clarify it.

 

The best approach is to verbally explain it in the video itself. Example lines:

"I've used an emulator to record the footage you are seeing. As far as I know it's an accurate reproduction of the original hardware, but keep it in mind if you spot anything weird."

"Unfortunately, I can only record this footage using an emulator, so in the picture the player character seems to disappear and reappear while the fireballs come up around him. Played on the real hardware, the player character and the fireballs do show slight signs of flicker, however they're perfectly visible all the time."

 

Also, it does depend on the platform. If the platform is well emulated it's sure less problematic than when it's poorly emulated. This is especially true if the emulation isn't only used for lack of the recording equipment to capture the footage of the real system, but for lack of the system itself. If there's no good emulator for the system, any attempt of actually judging the game from playing it in the flawed emulator would be futile. So it's important to do the research and to stop attempting to review a game if it turns out it's not gonna work. Because if the reviewer does the review entirely oblivious to the fact that the emulator if flawed, he will come to the conclusion the flaw is inherent in the game, not the emulator, and so his review won't do the game justice, it might even completely pan a good game.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Herbarius

[retrorussell]

As long as you have a pretty good grasp of what the game looked like on the platform you owned when you played it in the past, and you feel confident your emu replicates it pretty close to perfectly, then I say go for it. I do that with MAME for my rare game vids, and I can remember pretty well if there's any color or sound differences. If there are then I won't make a video of it. Or usually the MAME program will tell you if something isn't replicated properly.

[maibock]

Videogamecritic.net is my favorite review site. They guy writes really concise reviews that some people will probably not care for, but his love for video games is obvious and all of his reviews are done using the real thing.

 

Chris

 

Volume over substance? no thanks - after reading a few reviews there, seems like the guy is more into getting the most reviews out rather than actually reviewing the game. In fact after those reviews, with the info given, it really didn't matter to me if he used an emulator, actual hardware, or recollected the game from 25 years ago. Very generic reviews..

[maibock]

In fact after reading a few more reviews, I've come to the conclusion that if it came between this guy on actual hardware giving light summaries of the games, or some guy on a emulator demonstrating passion with a bit of whimsy on the reviewed game, give me the latter.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's a market for light summaries of games, it's just not all that entertaining for me.

[CGQuarterly]

In fact after reading a few more reviews, I've come to the conclusion that if it came between this guy on actual hardware giving light summaries of the games, or some guy on a emulator demonstrating passion with a bit of whimsy on the reviewed game, give me the latter.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's a market for light summaries of games, it's just not all that entertaining for me.

 

I think that both serve their purpose. I've never been a fan of IGN.com's 4 or 5 page long reviews. I like VGC's short reviews because they just quickly summarize the game and tell you if it is good or not (in his opinion, of course). I generally just want to know if a game is worth my checking out. I don't want toknow every single detail of the game because I want to form my own opinion. So for me it is better if someone just tells me the basics of the game, and how good they think it is. If I am looking up a review then I am already interested in the game, so I just want to know if I should go ahead and get it so that I can check it out for myself, or if I should skip it. Unfortunately, as someone else already pointed out (and you alluded to) he seems to not spend enough time with a lot of the games, therefore missing the point at times. As you said, he sometimes seems more concerned with writing as many reviews as possible (his Atari 2600 reviews are particularly short). I like the site because when I am interested in some game, or I get a new console, I can pop over to his site and quickly see what someone's opinion of the game is, or see what games I should keep an eye out for on that new console.

 

If someone is going to write a multi-thousand word piece on a game, then it shouldn't be a review. Write three thousand words on the impact that Pitfall! had on video games, or on the history of the Donkey Kong series. Like a chapter out of Bill Loguidice's "Vintage Games" book. That is interesting reading. Three pages on why you think Kid Niki is a good game is not so much.

 

Reviews should not be done using emulators because the game is not being played on the machine for which it was written, it is (probably) not being played with a proper controller, and it is not being played on the intended display. An emulator does not give the player the intended experience. To review a game in such a manner would be like reviewing a pair of running shoes solely (heh) from using them on a treadmill. It would be like reviewing a supercar after driving it around town. Yes you are experiencing the real product, but not in the manner in which it was intended. How can a reviewer write a review with any kind of "passion" if they can't be bothered to own the actual hardware? If you don't own a Sega Saturn, then you just are not into that system enough to make me want to read your reviews of its games because you obviously don't care that much for it yourself. This thread got started when the guy who reviewed the VCS, Intellivision, and Colecovision consoles using emulators for two of them. That's just ridiculous. How can you review something that you don't have? He could have reviewed the emulators, but how can you when you don't have the actual hardware to compare them to?

 

Chris

[maibock]

In fact after reading a few more reviews, I've come to the conclusion that if it came between this guy on actual hardware giving light summaries of the games, or some guy on a emulator demonstrating passion with a bit of whimsy on the reviewed game, give me the latter.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's a market for light summaries of games, it's just not all that entertaining for me.

 

I think that both serve their purpose. I've never been a fan of IGN.com's 4 or 5 page long reviews. I like VGC's short reviews because they just quickly summarize the game and tell you if it is good or not (in his opinion, of course). I generally just want to know if a game is worth my checking out. I don't want toknow every single detail of the game because I want to form my own opinion. So for me it is better if someone just tells me the basics of the game, and how good they think it is. If I am looking up a review then I am already interested in the game, so I just want to know if I should go ahead and get it so that I can check it out for myself, or if I should skip it. Unfortunately, as someone else already pointed out (and you alluded to) he seems to not spend enough time with a lot of the games, therefore missing the point at times. As you said, he sometimes seems more concerned with writing as many reviews as possible (his Atari 2600 reviews are particularly short). I like the site because when I am interested in some game, or I get a new console, I can pop over to his site and quickly see what someone's opinion of the game is, or see what games I should keep an eye out for on that new console.

 

If someone is going to write a multi-thousand word piece on a game, then it shouldn't be a review. Write three thousand words on the impact that Pitfall! had on video games, or on the history of the Donkey Kong series. Like a chapter out of Bill Loguidice's "Vintage Games" book. That is interesting reading. Three pages on why you think Kid Niki is a good game is not so much.

 

Reviews should not be done using emulators because the game is not being played on the machine for which it was written, it is (probably) not being played with a proper controller, and it is not being played on the intended display. An emulator does not give the player the intended experience. To review a game in such a manner would be like reviewing a pair of running shoes solely (heh) from using them on a treadmill. It would be like reviewing a supercar after driving it around town. Yes you are experiencing the real product, but not in the manner in which it was intended. How can a reviewer write a review with any kind of "passion" if they can't be bothered to own the actual hardware? If you don't own a Sega Saturn, then you just are not into that system enough to make me want to read your reviews of its games because you obviously don't care that much for it yourself. This thread got started when the guy who reviewed the VCS, Intellivision, and Colecovision consoles using emulators for two of them. That's just ridiculous. How can you review something that you don't have? He could have reviewed the emulators, but how can you when you don't have the actual hardware to compare them to?

 

Chris

 

 

Halfway through your response and I was going to say "fair enough" but the last paragraph kind of gets me a bit. Seems to come across as elitism as if to say someone isn't worthy of a review unless they own the system and the game. Who cares if they do or not? I'm looking for insightful interesting, amusing and maybe informative points of view on the game. When Wil Wheaton started reviewing Atari and Arcade games, he came under a lot of fire, simply because people didn't think he was worthy of reviewing games because he was an actor. Not sure of the 2600 reviews, but his arcade reviews were mostly from a MAME emulator. To me, and most who enjoyed the write-ups, it simply didn't matter. The reviews were hysterically good in most cases, and a fresh take on older games. That's what we need more of, not yet another stale summary of a game.

 

All I'm saying is to have a BIG tent on retro reviews, actual hardware or not.

[VectorGamer]

I echo the other member's comments about concise reviews. VGC's reviews are a quick read, to the point and comical at times.

 

It seems like people either love or hate VGC.

 

I dunno - I'm probably not going to offer up anything else on this thread. Fact is that we have different tastes otherwise we would be pretty boring. The issue of emulation for reviews seems pretty split down the middle and you can make this a 35 page thread if it doesn't get locked by then.

[CGQuarterly]

In fact after reading a few more reviews, I've come to the conclusion that if it came between this guy on actual hardware giving light summaries of the games, or some guy on a emulator demonstrating passion with a bit of whimsy on the reviewed game, give me the latter.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's a market for light summaries of games, it's just not all that entertaining for me.

 

I think that both serve their purpose. I've never been a fan of IGN.com's 4 or 5 page long reviews. I like VGC's short reviews because they just quickly summarize the game and tell you if it is good or not (in his opinion, of course). I generally just want to know if a game is worth my checking out. I don't want toknow every single detail of the game because I want to form my own opinion. So for me it is better if someone just tells me the basics of the game, and how good they think it is. If I am looking up a review then I am already interested in the game, so I just want to know if I should go ahead and get it so that I can check it out for myself, or if I should skip it. Unfortunately, as someone else already pointed out (and you alluded to) he seems to not spend enough time with a lot of the games, therefore missing the point at times. As you said, he sometimes seems more concerned with writing as many reviews as possible (his Atari 2600 reviews are particularly short). I like the site because when I am interested in some game, or I get a new console, I can pop over to his site and quickly see what someone's opinion of the game is, or see what games I should keep an eye out for on that new console.

 

If someone is going to write a multi-thousand word piece on a game, then it shouldn't be a review. Write three thousand words on the impact that Pitfall! had on video games, or on the history of the Donkey Kong series. Like a chapter out of Bill Loguidice's "Vintage Games" book. That is interesting reading. Three pages on why you think Kid Niki is a good game is not so much.

 

Reviews should not be done using emulators because the game is not being played on the machine for which it was written, it is (probably) not being played with a proper controller, and it is not being played on the intended display. An emulator does not give the player the intended experience. To review a game in such a manner would be like reviewing a pair of running shoes solely (heh) from using them on a treadmill. It would be like reviewing a supercar after driving it around town. Yes you are experiencing the real product, but not in the manner in which it was intended. How can a reviewer write a review with any kind of "passion" if they can't be bothered to own the actual hardware? If you don't own a Sega Saturn, then you just are not into that system enough to make me want to read your reviews of its games because you obviously don't care that much for it yourself. This thread got started when the guy who reviewed the VCS, Intellivision, and Colecovision consoles using emulators for two of them. That's just ridiculous. How can you review something that you don't have? He could have reviewed the emulators, but how can you when you don't have the actual hardware to compare them to?

 

Chris

 

 

Halfway through your response and I was going to say "fair enough" but the last paragraph kind of gets me a bit. Seems to come across as elitism as if to say someone isn't worthy of a review unless they own the system and the game. Who cares if they do or not? I'm looking for insightful interesting, amusing and maybe informative points of view on the game. When Wil Wheaton started reviewing Atari and Arcade games, he came under a lot of fire, simply because people didn't think he was worthy of reviewing games because he was an actor. Not sure of the 2600 reviews, but his arcade reviews were mostly from a MAME emulator. To me, and most who enjoyed the write-ups, it simply didn't matter. The reviews were hysterically good in most cases, and a fresh take on older games. That's what we need more of, not yet another stale summary of a game.

 

All I'm saying is to have a BIG tent on retro reviews, actual hardware or not.

 

I honestly don't see how it is elitism. How can you and why would you review something that you don't have? This isn't a case of "I'm better than you because I have an actual Sega Genesis." It isn't difficult to get most old consoles and games on the cheap, and if you care enough to review them, I would think that you would want to have them to do the reviews on. I don't review sports cars because I don't have any. I could drive them in Gran Turismo or Forza, but obviously it isn't the same thing. Those games provide a simulation of the experience, not the experience itself.

 

What I really don't get is why someone would want to review something that they don't have. Why would you be motivated to review it? "I don't have a Kitchen-Aid mixer, but I just really feel like reviewing it. I'm gonna go to Bed Bath and Beyond and play with the display model and then write it up." I know I sound like a broken record but I really DON'T GET IT. If you are going to review games using MAME, then fine, but that has to be a part of your schtick. You are reviewing games from the POV of someone playing them in MAME. You can't pass them off as straight arcade reviews. Same goes for every other console. And again, as far as reviewing consoles that you don't have in hand, that's just crazy.

 

Chris

[GideonsDad]

There may be certain "nuances" and such that will be missed not reviewing w/ real consoles. But with the availability with emulators and ROMs on-line anyone can review any game for any system they desire, no matter how rare the console or game may be if they have the desire to.

 

I review Froggo games on my Website with Stella. I own a 2600 but I don't want to drag it out, set it up, etc. to review a game (some of which I don't own nor plan on buying anyway).

 

I think emulators are awesome, I think ROMs make games more available to people who might not otherwise get to play the games.

 

Verdict: Good

 

GideonsDad

[maibock]

In fact after reading a few more reviews, I've come to the conclusion that if it came between this guy on actual hardware giving light summaries of the games, or some guy on a emulator demonstrating passion with a bit of whimsy on the reviewed game, give me the latter.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's a market for light summaries of games, it's just not all that entertaining for me.

 

I think that both serve their purpose. I've never been a fan of IGN.com's 4 or 5 page long reviews. I like VGC's short reviews because they just quickly summarize the game and tell you if it is good or not (in his opinion, of course). I generally just want to know if a game is worth my checking out. I don't want toknow every single detail of the game because I want to form my own opinion. So for me it is better if someone just tells me the basics of the game, and how good they think it is. If I am looking up a review then I am already interested in the game, so I just want to know if I should go ahead and get it so that I can check it out for myself, or if I should skip it. Unfortunately, as someone else already pointed out (and you alluded to) he seems to not spend enough time with a lot of the games, therefore missing the point at times. As you said, he sometimes seems more concerned with writing as many reviews as possible (his Atari 2600 reviews are particularly short). I like the site because when I am interested in some game, or I get a new console, I can pop over to his site and quickly see what someone's opinion of the game is, or see what games I should keep an eye out for on that new console.

 

If someone is going to write a multi-thousand word piece on a game, then it shouldn't be a review. Write three thousand words on the impact that Pitfall! had on video games, or on the history of the Donkey Kong series. Like a chapter out of Bill Loguidice's "Vintage Games" book. That is interesting reading. Three pages on why you think Kid Niki is a good game is not so much.

 

Reviews should not be done using emulators because the game is not being played on the machine for which it was written, it is (probably) not being played with a proper controller, and it is not being played on the intended display. An emulator does not give the player the intended experience. To review a game in such a manner would be like reviewing a pair of running shoes solely (heh) from using them on a treadmill. It would be like reviewing a supercar after driving it around town. Yes you are experiencing the real product, but not in the manner in which it was intended. How can a reviewer write a review with any kind of "passion" if they can't be bothered to own the actual hardware? If you don't own a Sega Saturn, then you just are not into that system enough to make me want to read your reviews of its games because you obviously don't care that much for it yourself. This thread got started when the guy who reviewed the VCS, Intellivision, and Colecovision consoles using emulators for two of them. That's just ridiculous. How can you review something that you don't have? He could have reviewed the emulators, but how can you when you don't have the actual hardware to compare them to?

 

Chris

 

 

Halfway through your response and I was going to say "fair enough" but the last paragraph kind of gets me a bit. Seems to come across as elitism as if to say someone isn't worthy of a review unless they own the system and the game. Who cares if they do or not? I'm looking for insightful interesting, amusing and maybe informative points of view on the game. When Wil Wheaton started reviewing Atari and Arcade games, he came under a lot of fire, simply because people didn't think he was worthy of reviewing games because he was an actor. Not sure of the 2600 reviews, but his arcade reviews were mostly from a MAME emulator. To me, and most who enjoyed the write-ups, it simply didn't matter. The reviews were hysterically good in most cases, and a fresh take on older games. That's what we need more of, not yet another stale summary of a game.

 

All I'm saying is to have a BIG tent on retro reviews, actual hardware or not.

 

I honestly don't see how it is elitism. How can you and why would you review something that you don't have? This isn't a case of "I'm better than you because I have an actual Sega Genesis." It isn't difficult to get most old consoles and games on the cheap, and if you care enough to review them, I would think that you would want to have them to do the reviews on. I don't review sports cars because I don't have any. I could drive them in Gran Turismo or Forza, but obviously it isn't the same thing. Those games provide a simulation of the experience, not the experience itself.

 

What I really don't get is why someone would want to review something that they don't have. Why would you be motivated to review it? "I don't have a Kitchen-Aid mixer, but I just really feel like reviewing it. I'm gonna go to Bed Bath and Beyond and play with the display model and then write it up." I know I sound like a broken record but I really DON'T GET IT. If you are going to review games using MAME, then fine, but that has to be a part of your schtick. You are reviewing games from the POV of someone playing them in MAME. You can't pass them off as straight arcade reviews. Same goes for every other console. And again, as far as reviewing consoles that you don't have in hand, that's just crazy.

 

Chris

 

 

and that's the beauty of emulation! you don't have to physically own an outdated/unattainable game to enjoy it - I maintain that MAME is amongst the best written pieces of software for the PC, ever.. It's a beautiful thing.

 

If someone doesn't own an Atari and enjoys playing in through emulation, then decides to write entertaining reviews. Who cares? It's the review itself that needs to be enjoyable.. not how, where, and when, they played the game.