zombier said: bdbdbd said: @zombier: This time you thought before posting, you said clearly your point of view without trying to make it sound like some universal fact and (nearly) without trying to bash anyone. You haven't played the previous Primes (and other Metroids in general)? Did you get the lores? Scanned the flora and fauna? There was actually a lot more story than just the main story. And actually, MP3 isn't shooter, it's adventure game. So people don't like Metroids because of the shooting, but because of the adventure. Although there were a lot of shooter elements added to the game (linearity and places where the whole idea was to kill everyone in sight). MP3 also missed one thing, which every other Metroid has had, you didn't really feel being alone on your quest (even though you practically were). About the controls, i have never liked the dual analog scheme or KB+ mouse. If you like them more (or didn't like MP3), it's fine with me, not going to argue. I actually wasn't going to post to this topic for the reason i haven't played Bioshock (i didn't want to compare them since i had nothing concrete to compare SMG with), but somehow your post made me want to post. I didn't (on purpose) mention earlier, that you brought up only the other side of story, you didn't mention people who have played only Bioshock and claim it to be better. You got a point about fanboys, but it's the same thing with every fanboy, no matter the console, every game on the console of choice is better than anything on competitor. And one thing that makes me sceptical about high rated FPS:s, is that just look how many, mediocre at best, have had high ratings from reviews, so it's no wonder if people see "shooter X" overrated without playing, and to add to that the events lately with Assassins Creed and what was the other game, you really need to think twice about to believe or not to the ratings, especially with high budget titles. So i'm not saying Bioshock overrated, nor underrated, atleast before playing it. And for the record, you are just as entitled to your opinion, as i am and i do respect your opinions just like everyone elses too. I didnt mean to sound harsh with the respect your opinion thing so i apologize for that. I know i should have talked about people who only played bioshock and not smg to, but we all know there are more ninty fanboys on this forum. But yea to me you have to have played good amount of both games to discuss this debate properly. Yes i know alot of people like to think of the prime series as an adventure game but its a fps too. Nintendo did a so-so job on both aspects of the game. There are better shooters(and dont argue the controller aspect because its still a mediocre shooter), and the adventure aspect has been done alot better inside nintendo itself with the zelda series. I know fps get high scores on most review sites. Another thing with the hardcore nintendo bunch is they cry that sites like ign dont know what they are talking about when a wii game gets a bad review. But when a wii game gets a good review they are like omg its better than *insert 360/ps3 game here* check game rankings! Such a double standard with fanboys

I agree that Zelda does adventure better than Metroid. But, one thing to notice was, that you didn't call Zelda a 3rd person swordfighting (or slasher, if you want to use that word). You see, it looks like most people think that game is a shooter if it's played from first person view. And that would make Shadowgate a shooter too. Do you know why you could call MP3 a mediocre shooter? There's not much to shoot. With the same standards MP3 is real crappy platformer, or RPG. The idea in Metroids have always been finding your way thru a maze, finding the power-ups needed to advance from certain points and go back to cleared areas to collect needed key items or power-ups or come back after you have item or power-up needed to advance beyond certain point instead of shooting your way thru stages or areas or kill everyone in that area to advance. The story in Metroid (as a whole) is very interesting, since instead of warfare, it's build around energy. Quick glance at the story (chronologically), the Chozos found a lifeform from SR-388, which could grow to be a thread to the Chozos and they create a biological weapon, the Metroid, to destroy them. The Chozos die eventually. One day SR-388 is found by the Federation and the space pirates rob the Metroids to investigate how they can produce energy with them. At some point space pirates discover Phazon and study it's ability to mutate lifeforms and produce energy. And finally Samus gets a task to destroy all Metroids and (hopefully) end the space pirates. So, are you sure you fight for the good guys? The double standards work for every fanboy. Also i have from time to time noticed that fact. One of the reason why shooters get rated so high, is because there are so many of them coming, so being a reviewer basically requires reviewer to like shooters. This is one of the reasons why people say reviewers don't know how to review Wii games. There are so different games, than what they are used to/are familiar with. For example i, who don't like shooters that much, i doubt i would be giving high 9:s to any shooter. It may not be fair, but that's just the way it goes. Also the popularity of certain games and platforms have something to do with the ratings. If some genre is popular, you propably want to give a little higher rating for the games in that genre in order to get fans reading your review. Of games for a specific platform, if you want that platforms gamers to read your reviews, you may want to give a little higher rating for the games on the specific platform. So, i would say that reviewers have a lot learning to do. Luckily, games quality for the Wii seems to be on a high rise, so it should help the reviewers in their learning process.

mike_intellivision said: OK, first I have to qualify my remarks by saying that I don't own a 360, so I have never played Bioshock. That being said, I thought it would be a better game than Halo 3 when it came out -- and I stand by that (and the reviews proved me right). I have no problem with either game winning the award -- nor any problem with a couple of the other games mentioned in here gathering the honor. My problem has been when games are not mentioned or nominated -- such as the Spike Video Game Awards that had the same four games nominated for 360 Game of the Year and Game of the Year. If you are a neutral observer/critic of videogames, and you do not put SMG on your top 10 or top 5 list, then I think you have a problem -- especially since the consensus of the reviews is that it is the best game of the current generation of consoles (for what that is worth). Mike from Morgantown

QFT. 100%

 

tabsina said: I haven't played both, but since Bioshock generally isn't my idea of a good game, concept, story or theme.. My opinion would be SMG by a long shot

ok once again another useless statement.

i have played both...SMG--bioshock was great but its nothing more then a FPS with some super powers added on, but since the powers are things we have seen in games befoer they arent blowing me out of my seat

also the visuals are lacking-i suffered from drops in framerate ad not everything rendering correctly--many a time i ran up on my enimes with wrench in hand and they would still be getting all the polish done--some time i would be able to drop them before all of the cloths got all the textures--and dont even get me started on the foam from the sinking plane;(

and while mario isnt with out faults--(little easy for people that have been platforming for a while) it is a much more polished game

Were you playing Bioshock on a PC mesoteto?

nope on an elite

also i thought the waepons were a bit lacking--i mean they were great looking but nothing new---but man was it nice getting in there with the wrench--i also think it should have been an award to beat down a rosie or a bouncer with it