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

Forums - Nintendo - Look at me! I am playing badly reviewed games and having fun!

Torillian on 08 April 2010
Gnizmo said:
Torillian said:
Gnizmo said:
Torillian said:

possible that one or two people do that?  sure.  But it's amazingly unlikely that all reviewers are doing that.  I'll tell you right now that isn't how I reviewed the game.

Why is it people ignore that Wii games can get great reviews?  People love to talk about how SMG is the highest reviewed game of the generation, but apparently reviewers don't like anything on the Wii.

I'd argue that review is the perfect example of the Wii getting the short end of the stick for simply being the Wii. You docked points for graphics, and yet you didn't name one game that looked better. The last time I mentioned this you gave a generic "any 1st party game looks better" but that is no where close to true. The only explanation I ever came up with is you held the system to the graphical standards of the PS360, and thats not a valid comparison.

Perhaps you are right that I was rough on the game as far as graphics go, but the presentation as a whole got a 7.0 not just the graphics, and that includes the story and voice acting which helped make the game just an average presentation score and have nothing to do with comparing the graphics to PS360.  And there are games that I think look better such as LKS and SMG.

You specifically mentioned thinking the graphics were sub-par in the review. I do appreciate you at least naming games this time rather than just evading the question like last time. Still, not entirely on the topic so I will cut this short.

"Graphically, Crystal Bearers is nothing to write home about, as they say. There are some cool-looking moments coupled with mini-games during boss fights, but overall the game is average in both artistic and technical qualities."

average to me does not equate to sub-par.



...

Around the Network
valen200 on 08 April 2010

I am fairly open about all the poo games I own. look at my wii games to see how bored I can get. Still, I honestly have enjoyed many games dismissed by reviewers. I use a review as aguide, not a final say.



"But as always, technology refused to be dignity's bitch."--Vance DeGeneres

 

http://cheezburger.com/danatblair/lolz/View/4772264960

Metallicube on 08 April 2010

What the nail in the coffin for me, is when Wii Sports got like a 75% on Gamerankings, and Mario Kart Wii, ended up with a 81%. That's just asinine. Those are two of the most fun games I've played this generation. Just goes to show that "cinematic value" seems to be the main priority with most mainstream reviewers over actual fun factor. That's why I don't really listen to them anymore, as we clearly have different values in determining what makes a good game.

This gap is becoming more apparent with a game like Just Dance that gets 4.5/5 stars on Amazon yet somehow gets an average of 5/10 on most mainstream review sites. Something is clearly wrong.. There needs to be some review sites out there from the perspective of an expanded audience gamer, instead of just another graphic whore and nerdy mid 20s male, because obviously the typical mid 20s jock or geek male looking for epic games with complex gameplay, explosions, and pretty graphics, is not going to look highly on Just Dace, no matter how fun it may be..



Faxanadu on 08 April 2010

Good for me. I just got BWii, Cursed Mountain and Spyborgs and hope I will enjoy them.



Any message from Faxanadu is written in good faith but shall neither be binding nor construed as constituting a commitment by Faxanadu except where provided for in a written agreement signed by an authorized representative of Faxanadu. This message is intended for the use of the forum members only.

The views expressed here may be personal and/or offensive and are not necessarily the views of Faxanadu.

MaxwellGT2000 on 08 April 2010
BMaker11 said:
dunno001 said:
Torillian said:
adsl said:
I enjoyed Final Fantasy Crystal Bearers too and it deserves a better reviews. Since it is a Wii game the reviewers just don't like it.

Wii has already a very strong and diverse library, unique titles like FFCB, RS2, NMH2 and Just Dance keep coming, but you know that they will have bad reviews only because they aren't hd titles...

And all those pages and pages that reviewers wrote about the game as to why they thought it deserved the score they gave?  Was that all just a front so they could mask their bias?  What a bunch of BS.


Actually, yes, it is a front. They always compare it to what "could have been" (or in their eyes, "should" have been) on the PS3 or 360. Since the graphics aren't as good, they dock it points right there. Add in quite a few of them who whine about "the waggle", others whining about the "casualness" of its games, and the ones that just in general don't like Nintendo, and they'll skew the words however they can to trash a Wii game.

What they are not doing is reviewing for the people who care about the game. They're reviewing based on where they want to see gaming go, ie, a stagnant and slowly shrinking red ocean. Yes, there's the occasional blockbuster that makes gaming seem larger than ever, but in general, games are not selling as well as developers need, and they're going out of business as a result. But the Wii requires companies to shift how they do things- "they" meaning publishers, developers, and yes, reviewers. Rather than do that, they'll slight the Wii, trashtalk it, do what they can in hopes that someone picks up on this and decides to not get a Wii, getting something else instead. It becomes another person that they can sell the same old tricks to. All because they just don't want to change.

EDIT IN REPLY TO POST ABOVE THIS: You mention some Nintendo games as getting high scores. I'll counter that by referencing my first line- what could be on the HD systems. They know that Nintendo won't make a game for someone else. So they can't compare it to something else, and actually have to review it based on its merits. This results in the higher scores, and, for Nintendo's better games, also allows them to help perpetuate the "belief" that only Nintendo games sell on Nintendo systems, and that "we can't compete with Nintendo." Get the smaller guys to give up, go HD, and keep fueling what they want. Gotta take some lumps to get what you want; giving Nintendo's own games good scores, while usually deserving, is the easiest, and feeds another slight.

@pots555: Where is this Fragile cult? I think I need to go join it...

I've always seen this argument, pertaining to low Wii scores. "They aren't reviewing based on what the game is meant for, but rather what 'gamers' think of the game" or something along those lines.

I propose to you this: If a developer made a game whose sole purpose was to bore you to death, should it get a 10/10 if it succeeds at that? The game is "meant" to bore you, so they should score it based on what it's "meant" to do, right?

Now, back to reality, just because a game is "meant" to do something, doesn't mean it's fun. And that's what reviewers do, the review based on how much fun they had. If they gave all the games low scores, it's because they didn't have fun with it, whether the game did what it intended to or not. Kane & Lynch is "supposed" to give me a taste of what it is to be a hired gun. The game does that....but it still sucked

Yes to "prove" your point you purpose something completely irrational, while the request wanted is just a simple request of the more "casual" games being reviewed by people that knows/has the capacity to enjoy casual games... FOR people that like those sorts of games!  It's not that crazy...

As for the fun factor I see a lot of games on the HD consoles being reviewed not for the "fun factor" usually some sort of "mature factor" is instead put in, cause if what you say is true, then Heavy Rain isn't a 9 game like so many sites put it at, since the game is about the story and "the panic/thrill that your characters could die at any moment"



MaxwellGT2000 - "Does the amount of times you beat it count towards how hardcore you are?"

Wii Friend Code - 5882 9717 7391 0918 (PM me if you add me), PSN - MaxwellGT2000, XBL - BlkKniteCecil, MaxwellGT2000

Around the Network
Gnizmo on 08 April 2010
Torillian said:

"Graphically, Crystal Bearers is nothing to write home about, as they say. There are some cool-looking moments coupled with mini-games during boss fights, but overall the game is average in both artistic and technical qualities."

average to me does not equate to sub-par.

Calling argueably the best looking game on the Wii nothing to write home about is slagging its graphics. But again, this is off topic. I will gladly discuss this with you in great detail in a different venue.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

Kenryoku_Maxis on 08 April 2010

There's plenty of great games out there scored low by reviewers. Most of them on Nintendo systems.

I can remember my first experience thinking a game was getting obvious downscores was Fire Emblem: Sacred Stones back on the GBA. It was getting avg scores of 8.5 from most sites, for a game that had obvious improvements over its predecessor (which scored higher on nearly all sites). And many similar examples of 'down scoring' to GBA titles followed.

This was also the period when I stopped reading reviews. It was obvious then what a lot of people are learning now. Reviewers were developing an 'anti-Nintendo' bais. It didn't start with the introduction of the Wii or even the DS. It began back with the GameCube and the GBA and even possibly before that.



Six upcoming games you should look into:

 

  

Spedfrom on 08 April 2010

pots555, I commend you for doing the right thing.



LordTheNightKnight on 08 April 2010
Gnizmo said:
Torillian said:

"Graphically, Crystal Bearers is nothing to write home about, as they say. There are some cool-looking moments coupled with mini-games during boss fights, but overall the game is average in both artistic and technical qualities."

average to me does not equate to sub-par.

Calling argueably the best looking game on the Wii nothing to write home about is slagging its graphics. But again, this is off topic. I will gladly discuss this with you in great detail in a different venue.

Made one.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

BMaker11 on 08 April 2010
MaxwellGT2000 said:
BMaker11 said:
dunno001 said:
Torillian said:
adsl said:
I enjoyed Final Fantasy Crystal Bearers too and it deserves a better reviews. Since it is a Wii game the reviewers just don't like it.

Wii has already a very strong and diverse library, unique titles like FFCB, RS2, NMH2 and Just Dance keep coming, but you know that they will have bad reviews only because they aren't hd titles...

And all those pages and pages that reviewers wrote about the game as to why they thought it deserved the score they gave?  Was that all just a front so they could mask their bias?  What a bunch of BS.


Actually, yes, it is a front. They always compare it to what "could have been" (or in their eyes, "should" have been) on the PS3 or 360. Since the graphics aren't as good, they dock it points right there. Add in quite a few of them who whine about "the waggle", others whining about the "casualness" of its games, and the ones that just in general don't like Nintendo, and they'll skew the words however they can to trash a Wii game.

What they are not doing is reviewing for the people who care about the game. They're reviewing based on where they want to see gaming go, ie, a stagnant and slowly shrinking red ocean. Yes, there's the occasional blockbuster that makes gaming seem larger than ever, but in general, games are not selling as well as developers need, and they're going out of business as a result. But the Wii requires companies to shift how they do things- "they" meaning publishers, developers, and yes, reviewers. Rather than do that, they'll slight the Wii, trashtalk it, do what they can in hopes that someone picks up on this and decides to not get a Wii, getting something else instead. It becomes another person that they can sell the same old tricks to. All because they just don't want to change.

EDIT IN REPLY TO POST ABOVE THIS: You mention some Nintendo games as getting high scores. I'll counter that by referencing my first line- what could be on the HD systems. They know that Nintendo won't make a game for someone else. So they can't compare it to something else, and actually have to review it based on its merits. This results in the higher scores, and, for Nintendo's better games, also allows them to help perpetuate the "belief" that only Nintendo games sell on Nintendo systems, and that "we can't compete with Nintendo." Get the smaller guys to give up, go HD, and keep fueling what they want. Gotta take some lumps to get what you want; giving Nintendo's own games good scores, while usually deserving, is the easiest, and feeds another slight.

@pots555: Where is this Fragile cult? I think I need to go join it...

I've always seen this argument, pertaining to low Wii scores. "They aren't reviewing based on what the game is meant for, but rather what 'gamers' think of the game" or something along those lines.

I propose to you this: If a developer made a game whose sole purpose was to bore you to death, should it get a 10/10 if it succeeds at that? The game is "meant" to bore you, so they should score it based on what it's "meant" to do, right?

Now, back to reality, just because a game is "meant" to do something, doesn't mean it's fun. And that's what reviewers do, the review based on how much fun they had. If they gave all the games low scores, it's because they didn't have fun with it, whether the game did what it intended to or not. Kane & Lynch is "supposed" to give me a taste of what it is to be a hired gun. The game does that....but it still sucked

Yes to "prove" your point you purpose something completely irrational, while the request wanted is just a simple request of the more "casual" games being reviewed by people that knows/has the capacity to enjoy casual games... FOR people that like those sorts of games!  It's not that crazy...

As for the fun factor I see a lot of games on the HD consoles being reviewed not for the "fun factor" usually some sort of "mature factor" is instead put in, cause if what you say is true, then Heavy Rain isn't a 9 game like so many sites put it at, since the game is about the story and "the panic/thrill that your characters could die at any moment"

Then all casual games would get high scores if reviewed by casual gamers. Core games would get all get high scores if reviewed by core gamers. Any game geared towards a particular audience would get a high score if reviewed by someone of that said audience. Talk about the review system being broken #shrugs

We can all acknowledge that the Imagine series by Ubisoft is pretty much garbage, but since it is definitely targeted at kids, should we get kids to review the game since they are about the only ones with "the capacity to enjoy the game"?