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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Kirby's Epic Yarn gets an award

Galaki on 18 December 2010

Sounds like a hit grab to me.



Pre-order limited edition Blue Slime Condoms

Around the Network
LordTheNightKnight on 18 December 2010

This is trolling. At least Other M's reasons matched a lot of the criticism of that game. The reason for Kirby is just bullshit.



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

forest-spirit on 18 December 2010

I haven't played Kirby but the feedback has been quite positive, hasn't it? Listing it as Worst game of the year is quite laughable. Other M got some criticism but second worst game of the year?

Trollolloll (TM)



kopstudent89 on 18 December 2010
Joelcool7 said:

Man Kirby makes you feel like a five year old, but that isn't nescessarily bad. Who doesn't like to feel five every now and then, I mean thats why grown adults watch Hello Kitty and Pooh Bear after all. I have to say the game is definatly not the worst to come out this year, not even close by a longshot.


And moreover is it the worst game cuz it's a kids game? I dont understand, it got great scores everywhere and yet this. I can understand Other M being a disappointment, but really terrible list



LordTheNightKnight on 18 December 2010

Check this out.

http://www.destructoid.com/consistency-thy-name-is-not-entertainment-weekly-189921.phtml

6:00 PM on 12.18.2010   |   Jim Sterling

So, yesterday we talked about how Entertainment Weekly voted Kirby's Epic Yarn the single worst game of 2010. While a bizarre choice in a year that saw games full of real technical, design and visual flaws, EW is entitled to its opinion.

Its bizarre logic that the game was "too cute" was the really stupid thing, however, and it seems that things have gotten stupider. See, Entertainment Weekly actually reviewed Kirby's Epic Yarn when it came out, and it seems that the "overwhelming" adorability wasn't a problem back then. In fact, the game scored a B . 

Here's what the review says. Bear in mind this is the ENTIRE review, as well. They work hard at EW:

"A pink globe gets plopped into a world constructed of colorful twine and craftsy cloth, and the result is likely the most adorable game ever. Yes, it's kinda easy, but you'll never stop smiling. B"

And that, friends, is grounds for being picked as the worst game of the year. Amazing, isn't it? They say that "real game journalists" are the worst writers around, but so long as editorially inconsistent publications like EW are around, I think I'll be sleeping easy at night. 

Does it really matter what EW thinks about games? I know some of you have asked that, and that answer is no. However, is it entertaining to laugh at what EW thinks about games? Absolutely! And I think that a publication called Entertainment Weekly could certainly appreciate that!

[Thanks to those that let me know about this]


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

Around the Network
Boutros on 18 December 2010

Wow that's very hypoctitical of Jim Sterling to say something like that. He's the worst reviewer out there so I wouldn't dare judge another person's opinion.



forest-spirit on 18 December 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:

Check this out.

http://www.destructoid.com/consistency-thy-name-is-not-entertainment-weekly-189921.phtml

6:00 PM on 12.18.2010   |   Jim Sterling

So, yesterday we talked about how Entertainment Weekly voted Kirby's Epic Yarn the single worst game of 2010. While a bizarre choice in a year that saw games full of real technical, design and visual flaws, EW is entitled to its opinion.

Its bizarre logic that the game was "too cute" was the really stupid thing, however, and it seems that things have gotten stupider. See, Entertainment Weekly actually reviewed Kirby's Epic Yarn when it came out, and it seems that the "overwhelming" adorability wasn't a problem back then. In fact, the game scored a B . 

Here's what the review says. Bear in mind this is the ENTIRE review, as well. They work hard at EW:

"A pink globe gets plopped into a world constructed of colorful twine and craftsy cloth, and the result is likely the most adorable game ever. Yes, it's kinda easy, but you'll never stop smiling. B"

And that, friends, is grounds for being picked as the worst game of the year. Amazing, isn't it? They say that "real game journalists" are the worst writers around, but so long as editorially inconsistent publications like EW are around, I think I'll be sleeping easy at night. 

Does it really matter what EW thinks about games? I know some of you have asked that, and that answer is no. However, is it entertaining to laugh at what EW thinks about games? Absolutely! And I think that a publication called Entertainment Weekly could certainly appreciate that!

[Thanks to those that let me know about this]


That's just hilarious!



Doobie_wop on 18 December 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:

Check this out.

http://www.destructoid.com/consistency-thy-name-is-not-entertainment-weekly-189921.phtml

6:00 PM on 12.18.2010   |   Jim Sterling

So, yesterday we talked about how Entertainment Weekly voted Kirby's Epic Yarn the single worst game of 2010. While a bizarre choice in a year that saw games full of real technical, design and visual flaws, EW is entitled to its opinion.

Its bizarre logic that the game was "too cute" was the really stupid thing, however, and it seems that things have gotten stupider. See, Entertainment Weekly actually reviewed Kirby's Epic Yarn when it came out, and it seems that the "overwhelming" adorability wasn't a problem back then. In fact, the game scored a B . 

Here's what the review says. Bear in mind this is the ENTIRE review, as well. They work hard at EW:

"A pink globe gets plopped into a world constructed of colorful twine and craftsy cloth, and the result is likely the most adorable game ever. Yes, it's kinda easy, but you'll never stop smiling. B"

And that, friends, is grounds for being picked as the worst game of the year. Amazing, isn't it? They say that "real game journalists" are the worst writers around, but so long as editorially inconsistent publications like EW are around, I think I'll be sleeping easy at night. 

Does it really matter what EW thinks about games? I know some of you have asked that, and that answer is no. However, is it entertaining to laugh at what EW thinks about games? Absolutely! And I think that a publication called Entertainment Weekly could certainly appreciate that!

[Thanks to those that let me know about this]


From what I can gather, the reviewer didn't write the Game of the Year article. They probably have a difference of opinion. It's like when IGN included God Hand into their Top 100 PS2 games, but gave it a 3.0 when they reviewed it at release. People have different opinions, some people would call Red Dead Redemption the best game of 2010, I'd call it the worst.

I could be wrong about who wrote the article, but no one seems to be linking back to the original EW article, but from a quick search, the Kirby reviewer doesn't seem to have anything to do with the GOTY article.



Bet with Conegamer and AussieGecko that the PS3 will have more exclusives in 2011 than the Wii or 360... or something.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752

LordTheNightKnight on 18 December 2010

If they let just one guy do the best and worst items, that's basically like saying "this reviewer's opinion is being put above all the other people in our publication who review the same medium". Not a good idea.



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

Torillian on 19 December 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:

If they let just one guy do the best and worst items, that's basically like saying "this reviewer's opinion is being put above all the other people in our publication who review the same medium". Not a good idea.


but if you require that all of a publications reviews are consistent with their later GotY-type articles that's the same thing since a review is written by a single person.  Approved by editorial staf sure but in the end it is the opinion of that one reviewer. 



...