FilaBrasileiro on 11 October 2007
| Gnizmo said: My opinion seems to be on par with that of many reviewers, your opinion though seems to be the real terrible measure. So the only measure of a games quality is based on reviewers? Then you have set an impossible task. With your definitions in place there is no game that can get mediocre reviews and be anything other than mediocre. You either need to redefine how a games quality is measured, or redefine the original challenge. Anything else is little more than justifying bashing a popular game because it went to a system you don't like. Soccer mom buy games for their kids all the time, do you think they have a clue how good the game is? They see and recognize Mario and know that will be good and violent free for Little Johny to play. You clearly know way different soccer moms than I do. They buy games cause their kids won't shut-up about them, and because their friends kids really seem to enjoy it. They don't just go into a store and pick a game randomly off the shelf all together and then decide it works. If Mario being on the front were enough to sell games, Mario's Time Machine would have very good sales numbers to back it. |
The only exceptions I saw from the lists given to me were BT1 and BT2.
Yes they do. I worked retail before at BB, soccer moms used to come by cheap crappy games for their kids all the time.
