corrosivefrost
Member
So the port of Mass Effect that finally came to the PS3 should be rated lower because it's 5 years old and offers essentially nothing more? Bullshit. It's either a good game or it's not. There's no reason it should receive a 90 on platform A and an 82 on platform B unless the game doesn't perform well or the game can't replicate the impact it had on the genre.
Ports are ports. Maybe you add some filters to make the game look better, or you add in online play if it makes sense and wasn't around when the game first released on a platform... but you don't change the core game. I can't help but think that you're implying that CAPCOM HD ports should have fixed a bunch of stuff like balancing in 3SOE, MvCO, and Darkstalkers or that DMC2 should have been changed into a game on the level of DMC and DMC3 when it was put onto the HD collection. All of those things are crazy talk (and though I really wish they would have ported the Saturn version of Darkstalkers 3 instead of the Arcade version, I understand why they didn't and live with it).
Bottom line, Muramasa is the same game as it was on the Wii 3-4 years ago when a minimal number of people played it, marginally improved by better controls and a "better" translation and upcoming DLC. Why should it get a lesser score? This isn't Super Mario 64 DS that had a horrible control scheme forced on it by lack of analog sticks or Star Fox 64 3D that probably should have had online multiplayer instead of just ad-hoc. I don't see why Muramasa should receive a lesser score unless it has some technical problems of some sort.
Agree to disagree, I guess.
