By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Barkley said:
celador said:

Oh please, can we stop this nonsense about reviewers hating on Nintendo, it's ridiculous. It's getting higher reviews because the gameplay hasn't aged at all and it comes with far more content than the original.

Nintendo first party games have scored highly on every single console and reviewers aren't out to get them or influenced by the game being on a shit console

It's not about hating on Nintendo specifically. It's about being influenced by the opinions of others, whether conciously or not. The more you see someone say "X is shit" the less possitive you will be about "X". To the extent that you could know nothing about something and believe it to be awful.

Whether you like it or not, everyone is affected by the opinions of others. People are unable to view something from a standpoint that isn't affected by outside influence.

How you can suggest that the reviews of a title can't be influenced by the console it's played on is beyond me though.

The question is why you think it's absurd that this game couldn't be earning this score simply because it's a large improvement over a game that had already earned an 88. This isn't a 75 going to a 92, an 88 to a 93, and it may drop from there as more reviews come in.

Improvements from original

-Resolution bumped to 1080p
-Can be played portably
-Both docked and portable have rock solid 60fps
-48 courses as opposed to 32 (includes ~$40 in DLCs)
-Actual battle mode developed, which the previous lacked almost entirely
-8 Battle arenas and 5 battle modes

Much like when the original was reviewed at a point where Nintendo's reputation was at its lowest, this doesn't require some misplaced affection to explain. It's just a demonstrably excellent game.