Einsam_Delphin said:
Again, you're using fail reviewer logic. Firstly, unique, revolutionary, etc. does not automatically mean good game, and being the first to do something does not mean you're the best at it. New instalments and sequels generally mean refinements to the gameplay and new additions n features. Secondly, if you believe SMB 2/3/World to be good games, and also believe the NSMB series did nothing different, then you're contradicting yourself by saying NSMB is inferior to the orginal games. Afterall it can't be worse and the same, that makes no sense! Thirdly, not everyone has played every Mario game, meaning the whole "but it's a sequel!" reasoning is not always relevant, hence should not be a factor when objectively determining a games quality. So let me ask again but a bit differently. Can you tell me what's bad about NSMBU without mentioning previous instalments? I don't care about Tetris, I don't care about how well thought it is or isn't, and I certainly don't care about what people find appealing, not when we're talking about Wii Sports and Nintendo Land, as none of those things have any impact on game quality! Only the actual games themselves do! Once again, Wii Sports is majorly lacking in depth and content. Only 5 games with no variable modes, and there's not much to these games, so it gets real repetitive real fast. Tennis is the worst, as all you do is waggle the Wiimote when the ball get's near your Mii. Can't even move your Mii. Same deal with Boxing and Baseball, but it's a tiny step up with the latter game as there's three different actions in this game, being throwing, catching, and hitting. Yeah, that's so revolutionary! Nope, the only revolutionary and unique thing about Wii Sports was how you played the game, not the actual game itself. I take it you haven't even played Nintendo Land, as how else can you say it's games aren't unique with a straight face. Unlike Wii Sports, some of it's games like Luigi's Ghost Mansion and Mario Chase wouldn't even be possible without the controller. |
I have never heard this term "fail reviewer logic" before. A remake of a AAA game done well enough to take advantages of modern technologies is still a great game. NSMBU fails to take advantage of WiiU's power and lack the creativity of the original games. Therefor it's not good, average at best.
NSMB did nothing difference, but it is worse (and yet the same). See new elemenets were added to SMB2/3/W, stuff that was unique at the time. These elemenets are what made the game great and fresh. NSMBU is more of the same, nothing new was added and the formula is 20 years old. So therefore it's not particularly good, even though it's the same core game as 20+ years ago. No contradiction.
A similar logic would be Super Mario Galaxy. It's the same game as Super Mario 64, but spherical gravity changes gameplay, making the whole game feel new and unique. SMG is great, but I can't say the same for 3D Land/World.
As for you're "it's a sequel comment" being a sequel is not why it's an average game. It's a sequel to a 20+ year old franchise, with HD skins. Games have evolved over the past 20 years, so being amazing in 1990 is not enough to be amazing in 2012. What's bad about NSMBU? Forced to use that tiny D-pad, gameplay is no more advanced then a Smartphone/portable game, and the whole gameplay is just so dated.
----
Being well thought out and appealing directly relates to quality and generally sales. Before Tetris people didn't really play portable games, but that all changed because of a simple, easy to pick up and put down "mini-game" like Tetris. GB had a lot of great games in the early 90's too, Link's Awakening being one of them, but it wasn't until Pokemon before people realized that some games are just better suited for handhelds. Pokemon was a well thought out, handheld exclusive game, one which incorporated trading (something which couldn't be done before internet was widespread at homes).
Tetris, Pokemon and Wii Sports are amazing games because they changed the way people played games. There was an untapped market for a new genre of games and these entries fleshed it out. While Wii Sports/Tetris might be basic, they are increadibly addictive and well thought out games. I mean I still play Tetris on my laptop because of how simple & fun it is, and I can see myself playing games like Wii Sports (if not Wii Sports) in the years to come because of how simple and fun it is.
You might love NintendoLand, but it isn't exactly revolutionary like the 3 examples I mentioned. It doesn't push the envelope for gaming, nor change how people play. It doesn't make the Gamepad a must have accessory for gaming. Yes games like Luigi's Ghost take great advantage of the handheld screen, but minigames like this already existed on the PC for years (where people would play over the internet).
While the quality of NintendoLand might be superior to Wii Sports, it's not a must have game like Wii Sports is, that's my point. You might like it, great, but most people will just think "meh" to it. If it weren't for the Nintendo theme of the game, I think this would be a largely forgetable experience (much like say PilotWings for 3DS).
What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database 
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results
