Make your review look better

Here is some advice on how to rate graphics. First, I would like to tell you not to say that gameplay is more important than graphics. Graphics are more important than you think. With good graphics, you can tell what everything is, where the hit boxes are, and what is crucial to your progress. For some reviewers, the "Graphics" category is a throwaway one, just like "Replay Value". By that, I mean that graphics can sometimes be just another way for a fanatic to praise, or a "hater" to bash a game. Some people, if they like a game, but notice that the graphics are not very good, say "they were good for the time". How do you know that? What a cop-out! I was not a gamer when the NES and SNES had graphical advances or any other kind of revolutionary feature, so I do not care about how good something was "back in the day". I care about how not obsolete it is against all these other new ones. I love Mario Golf 64, and even I am willing to admit that the graphics are in no way revolutionary or state-of-the-art. They were not "good for the time". I still like them, and wish they could be repeated in future installments of the Mario Golf series, but they are not standard-setters. Neither were the graphics on any other N64 game. The N64DD looked cool, and I would have rather had that than the Game Cube, but I understand why the Nintendo company decided to go with the Game Cube: they were tired of two-dimensional fences and blurry signs. Paper Mario 1 made a farce of the N64's graphics. And I must stress again, for those of you who are retro game fanatics, stop giving 8-bit graphics a free ride. You cannot just like graphics for what games they are in.

I am fully aware of the fact that I mention Mario Golf and Lost Levels in a lot of my blog posts.