| Mazty said: Very true that local multiplayer is something that is rare to find in games and may be a good selling point of the game, but personally what I played of NSMBW it just didn't seem like a quality title - the levels etc seemed to be just ported straight from the SNES with a few moderations. Still I can see how it would appeal to young kids, especially ones who have friends around etc though I'd still say as far as quality goes, it's nothing new or nothing special, which is a shame, but thinking about what you said that doesn't necessarily make it unenjoyable. I think NSMBW simply does what it is meant to do, which is a simple 2d scrolling platform, but that's nothing new; not bad, just not new. This is where I get confused when people talk about it, players and reviewers, as if it's the best platformer ever, when I'd say it's adequate, but some similar games offer more enjoyable features depending on what you want to do, as with quite a few Wii games. |
Now your experiences with the game are genuine, I acknowledge that, and trying ot impress upon you the qualities of the game would be counter-productive in more ways than one. But - and this is an important "but" - does it not stand to reason that, since you don't agree with the qualities that other people see in it, that they may have different value metrics altogether?
Like - suppose they hold World 8 in NSMBWii as pretty much the best platforming world in any game, ever, because of how it uses environments and enemies and lava and shit. Suppose you say to them, "There are games that have much more features tha just well-designed levels," and they say, "Yeah, but who cares about that stuff?"
Are the people who say that wrong for saying it?
