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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Sonic Riders: Zero Gravity review (IGN - 5.8)

kimbo on 15 January 2008
a.l.e.x59 said:
stof said:
But they did give Harvey Birdman a 7. So there's that at least.

7 = Mediocre. Crash Bandicoot: The Wrath of Cortex,Sonic Heroes, Blinx: The Time Sweeper, Banjo Kazooie: Grunty's Revenge, Knights: Journey of Dreams, and Killzone, all got around 70% in GameRankings... And guess what? They all stunk!

Well... They were all mediocre... But why play a mediocre game, when you can play a masterpiece? 8/10 = 4/5. Anything less than 4/5 is not worth the money. There are far, too many games, that got 4/5+, to play! Let this be universal... For once! 80%+ = Worth the money! Any less is not! Let this one, simple rule, be universal!

Where is the line that divides the bad, from good? Let it, universally, be, to make life easier, at 80%! It makes sense too, because all the good games in Metacritic, and other review sites, seem to be over 80%, and all the bad ones seem to be less than that. Let's compare it to Youtube videos. Everything that has recieved 4/5 stars, or more, is entertaining, yet everything lower is garbage. Correct? Correct! There needs to be a universal law, for numbers, when it comes to rating things! How about this?


0 = Worst
1 = Bad
2 = Bad
3 = Bad
4 = Bad
5 = Mediocre
6 = Mediocre
7 = Mediocre
8 = Good
9 = Masterpiece
10 = Best

It seems that no one can agree to this, universally. Some say that 6 = good, and some say that 7 = garbage... Some say that 5 = mediocre, while some say that it's actually 6 that = mediocre, while 7 = good... Even for something as simple as this, no one can agree upon.

7 = mediocre, but I think mediocre sucks...


I like the way you think dude ;)

I find this review system more useful then those crappy systems on game reviewer sites. 

Awesome just know that I'm taking this into account win purchasing games. I do realize there are some many games out there and why waster money on a game that is mediocre, where as it can be spent on a game that is worth your money that is rated 8 or above.

Nice post Alex.... 



Around the Network
Man on 15 January 2008

seriously, i dont understand how sega can continously make such bad games??

control issues??
surely that is one area that a game should NEVER be poor in??/
how can you release a game that has crapy controls?
logically that would be a flaw you would notice when play testing and fix?

i fail to understand how a relatively large gaming company can consistently make such poor games

and its sad too, cause a lot of sega games i would buy if they turned out to be any good. i like the ideas of a lot of their games, just never the finished product.



a.l.e.x59 on 15 January 2008
blaydcor said:
a.l.e.x59 said:
Sonic Riders: Zero Gravity, is bringing a friend along to the "Sonic Room of Disgrace." Who is that friend? I believe it's "Sonic RPG!" But ooooooooh, BIOWARE!! Ooooooooh!!! Well... We'll see... We'll see...
So, to cut through the idiocy, what you're basically saying is that a game's central character has a greater affect on the overall quality then the developer? You're almost more annoying than you are ignorant. 

 


Incorrect... Again... Stop assuming things... You don't do a good job of it. BioWare is not going to make the game good. Not because it's Sonic. I just do not believe that they are going to make a good Sonic RPG. Everyone thinks it's going to be a legend, because BioWare is making it. So far, I do not like what I know about the game, which leads me to believe that it will not be a redemption from the previous Sonic games. Not because Sonic's awfulness is greater, than the how good BioWare is... Even though it is... That is not the reason, that you have assumed. Sonic needs to be in a good, 3D platformer, done right... Not an RPG game!