The Transformers review is lacking
AVGN had really good episodes, but some of them were incredibly unfair - some of the old Atari consoles didn't deserve to be slammed like that, Intellivision was actually pretty cool back in the day and still has playable games, the Colecovision version of 'Tron: Deadly Discs' is still awesome and so on.
But what pisses me off the most sometimes, is how he LEAVES OUT actually good versions of games that he could have mentioned more than 2 seconds of crappy emulator capture without sound.
For example, in his 'Rambo' review, he DOES mention that Rambo: First Blood Part II does exist for other systems - he shows a Genesis version of a Rambo game, which is pretty good, and a couple of seconds from probably the best 'Rambo-game', the C64-version, and that's it. Why not play it and show it a bit more in-depth? Because it's too good and he only wants to limit himself to reviewing crappy games? Then good games should NEVER be shown, and they many times are, so what gives?
The worst offender is 'The Transformers', because he does show _A_ C64-version, but not ALL the C64-versions! What about the platformer that has the ACTUAL themesong done pretty darn well by Fred Gray, if I remember correctly?
Why not even mention that or show screenshots? It wasn't a brilliant game, but I would imagine it HAD to be better than the atrocious Famicom version!
(Let alone the C64-version he bothered to show)
Then he does this 'this game was also made for Commodore 64.. and it was considered good for its time'.
FOR ITS TIME? Why is that always his crutch to artificially create some kind of 'NES-superiority' complex?
Come on, a game can't be good for its time. It's either god or bad. If it's bad, but seemed good back then, it was never actually good. If it was good then, it's still good. Don't try to weasel out of this fact by slapping 'for its time' to keep NES in some kind of elevated state compared to older, better machines that actually had much better versions of not only games, but theme songs.
Just compare 'The Bionic Command' level 2 music on the C64 and the NES - it's the same melody, but the song itself is like night and day.
This is the problem with so many of his reviews - there are plenty of C64-versions of the games he reviews, but for some reason, he SKIPS those.
In his Star Wars-reviews, he does MENTION 'Dark Forces', but he doesn't show or play it, although it's one of the better games. How about X-Wing or TIE-Fighter? Not good enough to show?
Not to mention the Indiana Jones-crime, where he reviews a few versions, but does NOT show things like:
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: The Adventure Game for DOS, Amiga, etc.
Why not? This has got to be the best Indy game that can be considered 'console era', but not a beep of this one for some reason.
This kind of them runs throughout the AVGN mindset - he has the computers, the machines, etc., but he ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to show all versions, especially if some computer version might actually be good.
I guess it's the mindset of a Mac user - can't ever admit PC being better, even though factually, in all possible ways, it always is. Sigh.
As a sidenote, he mentions how with emulators it's not the same, because you'd be 'hunched over' a keyboard and couldn't use a 'real TV', but gamepads, joysticks and other controllers DO (and did back then) exist for PCs, as well as things like VGA2SCART-cables and other things that make it possible for you to play pretty much any console game on emulator with authentic resolution on CRT television using really good, authentic gamepads (you can even use real Super Famicom-controllers if you buy adaptors, just as an example).
So even his 'emulation assesment' is WRONG.
I, of course, agree that using a real system is the best, nothing beats the atmosphere you get from a real Commodore 64, real Atari 2600, real Amiga, real Super Famicom and so on, but sometimes emulation is perfectly viable and good, and does NOT involve 'hunching over a keyboard' or staring at a monitor necessarily, if you know what you are doing.
Besides, how are you going to get real machines of all your arcade game favorites unless you own some ENORMOUS abandoned industrial factory or storage hall? You can emulate about 6000ish individual arcade games on a PC, and with authentic controller and VGA2SCART cable, it's about as real as it gets without arcade monitor or some cabinet system, which doesn't add much as long as you have authentic resolution and authentic controls.. the rest is trivial.
I mean, you don't notice if there's a cabinet or if you're sitting comfortably when you are playing, as long as you have authentic-looking graphics, good sound and proper controller, right? So why bother building cabinets anyway?
I just wish he could include ALL versions of a game, or at least the C64-version more often, as it IS the best version in many cases. Missing the Fred Gray-version of 'The Transformers', is a big failure in his review.