| Stever89 said: Yeah I don't know. I see where both sides are coming from, except I don't believe that SSB:M is a party game. It's a multiplayer game, but that doesn't make it a party game... On one side games that are fun should be given credit for being fun, and a game doesn't need depth and unlockables and great graphics to be good. Thus, WiiSports should be rated higher. I'd give it at least an 8. And not because it does what it's suppose to do well, but because it's a fun game that anyone can play. And I find the controls pretty good. I know my brother beats me to the ground in tennis because he's learned how to hit the ball perfectly so that it goes to where my guys can't hit it. And he's played it enough to know how to those little tricks. That's depth enough. But since the game doesn't have a story line makes it seem not worthy of a decent score. Edouble24, you asked someone to come in here and say why some of these party games should be given better scores without expressing opinion, and I cannot do that. But at the same time, these reviewers give some of these games (Mario and Sonic is a good example) really bad scores, yet loads of people buy them. And I can't see how people would buy something if it's bad. I would expect party games to be a type of game that if it's fun, nobody would buy it, simply because the casuals that are buying it would be reserved to just buying a game. Word of mouth is the key here, which is why the Wii has done so well, and probably why games like Mario and Sonic do so well. To these people, Gears of War would get a 5, and Mario and Sonic would get 10. That's opinion. And that's human nature. But to say that these games don't deserve credit is uncalled for. Basically the difference between what you, Edouble24, was saying and what Bod was saying is that, while movie critics look at things such as, acting, good script, chemistry between actors/actresses, etc, basically anything that any movie can have, in a movie to determine if it's good, game critics usually look at the campaign mode, which includes things such as replayability, controls, co-op, the actual storyline, and to an extend graphics. But since party games usually don't have storys, and are just to pick up and play, they find it hard to say whether the game is any good. Also, party games are already going to get a lower story, simply because the lack of a real "campaign" mode is absent, and that is usually one of the greatest feature of any game, and since not all games have multiplayer, campaign mode is the only thing that can check. Without this campaign mode, they feel that the game lacks "depth" and other such things. With this already lower score because of a lack of a storyline mode, if they find anything else wrong, such as bad controls, the game just fails in their eyes. But the way it should be looked at is how fun is the game? Because that's what party games are for. Are they fun? Then you should start asking how the controls work and such. Should WiiSports get a 10? No. It's a good game, and it does have it's flaws. Does it deserve the 76% it has on GameRankings? I don't think so. The average vote gives it a 8.5. I think that's closer to what it should be. Finally, I think if you looked at the average score of games, like Mario and Sonic, by people who have bought the game, I think you'll find that the peoples score will be higher, if not greatly higher. Take Mario and Sonic (again) for example. IGN gave it a 7.9 "Good". The average press score according to IGN was 6.2, and the IGN AU rating was 5.2. The average reader score? 8.4. 2 whole points above the average press score. Why is that? |
This is why I made the movie comparison, just because a lot of people like something doesn't mean it should score well. Lots of games sell well that are heavily flawed. Why is Mario and Sonic selling? Maybe because Mario and Sonic are on the cover. If someone is writing an opinionated review and gives Mario and Sonic a 10, fine, but the game has some bluntly obvious flaws that most reviewers simply can't ignore.
You can get good sales from advertising a poor product, just because people bought into the hype doesn't make it good.
And Smash Brothers was always intended to be a party game, why wouldn't it be?
