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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Super Mario3D World + Bowsers Fury ~ IGN Review

In 2013 IGN gave Super Mario 3D World a 9.6

https://youtu.be/ncPrTqarnx4

2 Days ago they gave Super Mario 3D World + Bowsers Fury a 7.0

https://youtu.be/KburxgvFOOY

How does that work?
*better frame rates -1.2
*more content -1.2
*portability -1.2

total = 7.0???



我是广州人

Around the Network

Different reviewers and it's been more than 5 years since the initial release.

Not saying I agree with the review, because it's absolutely stupid for other reasons. Among the chief complaints is that you have a limited number of lives, and that you start a level in whatever state you exited the last (i.e. if you were mini-Mario you stay mini-Mario). The reviewer apparently doesn't want the game to give you any motivation to try to avoid getting hit and dying.

Be that as it may though, there is no reason it has to be consistent with the review they did 7 years ago. It's just stupid on its own.



Remakes shouldn't have the same scores as originals for the simply fact they are remakes. Context and perspective matters when giving scores 

Also not exactly people who liked the game back in 2013 are the ones who are giving scores now 

That's said... IGN sucks and their reviews are a joke. How people give so much credit to them is beyond me 



I don't really care about the score. They can score it what they want, but the reasoning behind the score is a bit silly. They complain about not being able to move the camera, that there is a lives system in place, and that your powerups carry from one level to the next. It feels like he hasn't played a 2D Mario game.

He also talks about how Galaxy is so much better without mentioning that 90% of the time you cannot control the camera in that game either, so IDK why it's an issue for 3D World but not Galaxy.

Anyway, just my two cents.



IcaroRibeiro said:

Remakes shouldn't have the same scores as originals for the simply fact they are remakes. Context and perspective matters when giving scores 

Also not exactly people who liked the game back in 2013 are the ones who are giving scores now 

That's said... IGN sucks and their reviews are a joke. How people give so much credit to them is beyond me 

But this is a port (with added content)  not a remake.



我是广州人

Around the Network

Deserved. Make new games Nintendo.
Anyway...I wouldn't mind, it's not like a bad review will stop it from selling 10 million units.



Ashadelo said:
IcaroRibeiro said:

Remakes shouldn't have the same scores as originals for the simply fact they are remakes. Context and perspective matters when giving scores 

Also not exactly people who liked the game back in 2013 are the ones who are giving scores now 

That's said... IGN sucks and their reviews are a joke. How people give so much credit to them is beyond me 

But this is a port (with added content)  not a remake.

I'm not sure that the distinction matters in any context, but it really doesn't matter here. Whatever you like to call it, it's a different person reviewing it at a different time, so they may have a different opinion. 



Super Mario 3D World is my favorite Wii U game. I love the gameplay, the graphics, and the soundtrack is one of the best I ever heard in a Mario game. I see no reason for it to get a score below 8/10 if it's the same game with extra content.



I have a Youtube channel... A Twitter, and... Yeah.

7/10 definitely does seem harsh considering the extra content.



tag:"reviews only matter for the real hardcore gamer"

Split the difference?