Weeeee...First Post
 

I'll review...Super Mario Bros for NES

Graphics: 1
Gameplay: 10
Sound: 10
Control: 10
Fun Factor: 10

LOL.. :Poke:

lol!

Umm... Okay? I don't understand, Perfect Stu... I am confused


:eek: :confused: :confused: :confused:

The graphics for NES weren't that good, but some of the games were..

Way to bring up an old topic SaMuS-aDaM.

samus, your angelfire pic won't work in a sig here casue angelfire sux! go to freeservers.com. they'll hook u up with a pretty good site name to. i got mikeshappyplace.8m.com.

Yeah, the graphics don't deserve a 1. They were not bad for the times.

All those sites like Geo****ties and AngelFire don't let you link images.. that's why they suck.

Hmm was confuzed until I realized this was an old News/Review forum thread..I believe

Re: Weeeee...First Post
 

I wouldn't even rate it that good

Graphics: 1
GamePlay: 5
Sound: 3
Controll: 5
Fun Factor: 10

Now Super Mario Bros 3... that's a different story...

Graphics: 3
GamePlay: 10
Sound: 5
Controll: 10
Fun Factor: 10

Because you do not rate graphics according to the time period and what was capable at that time, I hearby deem your game ratings Poor/Inaccurate. Sorry Stu. :(

Well

1) This is topic seems to come out of nowhere.
2) Ill state the same thing Gamespot once said. You cant base graphics of systems like NES on a universal standard (comepare to all systems). You must base your scale on graphics of that time for consoles like it.

Yes, Samus-adam brought it back from the acrhives of the General Forum.. look at the date Stu posted this topic.