Many Virtual Console reviewers are using what I call the "test of time" argument, which basically claims that these games -- like the classic ActRaiser -- deserve average or lower scores beacuse they don't offer any new mechanics or features we find in most modern titles. 

Seriously though, can we really compare direct ports of classic games to other modern marvels like Mass Effect or Fable? Yeah, this direct reboot of a game made around the early 90s doesn't have any sort of moral decision system, and it doesn't allow choices in situations involving dialogue or extended action. Players can't kill citizens or choose to help monsters in the city building mode in ActRaiser, so by default this game is "average." For something that's simply meant to present everything it used to, is this really a fair argument?

I do, however, believe there are valid instances when this approach seems necessary for classic reviews. For example, Ocarina of Time 3D was recently reviewed by 1UP's Jeremy Parish, who assigned an above average "B+" score to the game; he stated how it was still an exceptional revision but that more could have been done to enhance the experience. After all, this is technically a redo we're talking and not a direct port. Nintendo was already going through and redesigning this thing from top to bottom, so why not refine it a little more? An actual opportunity to improve on other mechanics -- like Link's combat -- had been missed, and so it was only fair for Parish to note this.

Now in defense of the Virtual Console review I mentioned earlier, it's probably a good idea to consider every type of gamer. Sure, it was an exceptional game back in the 90s, but the reader may not agree. Gamers who prefer intense modern experiences offered in newer titles won't be so easily impressed with most classics, while other retro enthusiasts and consumers who enjoy titles from all time periods will contest a lower review score. Everyone can't be pleased when certain games are reviewed but it's definitely important to focus on as many legitimate consumers as humanly possible.

So when it comes to classics and revisions, what's your opinion on the whole "test of time" argument? Do you feel it's justified for the sake of pleasing and protecting most consumers, or that a reviewer should focus more on both past and present influences?