Maybe, maybe not but hey, I think they gave the scores for Assassin's Creed a little too high too. On a technical level, they were enough flaws not to warrant 9 scores. It's true for NMH as well.

totalwar23 said: ZenfoldorVGI said: totalwar23 said: stof said: IGN   1/22/2008 7.8 out of 10 78.0% GameSpot   1/22/2008 9 out of 10 90.0% GameTrailers   1/20/2008 8.2 out of 10 82.0% Edge Magazine UK   2/1/2008 9 out of 10 90.0% Ngamer UK   2/1/2008 94 out of 100 94.0% GamePro   1/22/2008 4.5 out of 5 90.0% n-Revolution Magazine UK   1/1/2008 9 out of 10 90.0% I say they'd heard of NMH's poor sales in Japan and they were sympathetic in their scores. IGN scores was mostly right on. Very stylistic but lacking on the technical levels. So, a vast right wing sales conspiracy of sympathy caused critical acclaim of this game from every site, but IGN was somehow unaffected, while in the meantime, IGN's review was excactly right, even though you haven't played the game yet, yourself?   Wow, get real. It's not as if you played it either. What the hell is it with you and your staunch defense of everything Wii? NMH is a good game but not great. I'm inclined to agree with Gametrailers and IGN on this because I like my games to be technically good.

I'm not claiming the game is great. I'm saying that what you said is silly, unsubstantiated, and the very anthesis of why internet "deductions" are considered to be so insignificant.

You justified the IGN review as being correct because it is the lowest, and attempted to marginalize the many more numerious reviews, because you certainly don't think the game is great.

Then, you attempt to tell me, though you haven't played the game, that the game is good, but not great.

Again, get real. I'm not telling you what it is either way, but when you try to tell me what it is, or isn't with not even the slightest kind of real life fact or backing for your opinion, except that you saw the game and didn't like it because its not "technically good" from a graphical standpoint?

Are you trying to be taken seriously, because I think what you said is very close to trolling.  It's not provable and not even logical.

I believe there is a deeper reason you are opposed to this games quality, and its silliness. It's cherry picking the worst possible review to degrade the game, without previous admitting your biased, whatever that maybe. It's infuriating, honestly, because I doubt you would play this game even if you had it, and I believe that if IGN have given it a 10/10 and every other site gave it perfect scores, but gamespot gave it a 7/10, you would be on this very post flaming the game, as you are now, for getting a low score.

It's like lying by omission. 

Either way, you can't deny the game is critically acclaimed, because it is. It's nearly a 90/100 on gamerankings, and climbing(just got another 9/10). Do you deny the opinion that the game is critically acclaimed?

I'd go get it right now, but only Wal-Mart's open and I don't think they'd have it. Seems like too much of a niche title for them to carry.

Also, I'm not making stuff up, here is that "latest 90/100" that I eluded to in my last post:

Gamesrader.com

Look, I'm sorry I seem like I've been being harsh on here, but a lot of people are, whether they know it or not, trying to cherry pick bad reviews out of the good one, because they can't understand how games that look like this one are as good as or better than their PS3 games like Uncharted or Rachet.

Reviews are only opinion.

However, saying that this games reviews are inflated for wild, conspiritorial reasons, when I know that most Suda games I've played are fantastic, is an insult to a great developer, and almost certainly misinformation, and I have a tough time not commenting on stuff like that.

ZenfoldorVGI said: totalwar23 said: ZenfoldorVGI said: totalwar23 said: stof said: IGN   1/22/2008 7.8 out of 10 78.0% GameSpot   1/22/2008 9 out of 10 90.0% GameTrailers   1/20/2008 8.2 out of 10 82.0% Edge Magazine UK   2/1/2008 9 out of 10 90.0% Ngamer UK   2/1/2008 94 out of 100 94.0% GamePro   1/22/2008 4.5 out of 5 90.0% n-Revolution Magazine UK   1/1/2008 9 out of 10 90.0% I say they'd heard of NMH's poor sales in Japan and they were sympathetic in their scores. IGN scores was mostly right on. Very stylistic but lacking on the technical levels. So, a vast right wing sales conspiracy of sympathy caused critical acclaim of this game from every site, but IGN was somehow unaffected, while in the meantime, IGN's review was excactly right, even though you haven't played the game yet, yourself?   Wow, get real. It's not as if you played it either. What the hell is it with you and your staunch defense of everything Wii? NMH is a good game but not great. I'm inclined to agree with Gametrailers and IGN on this because I like my games to be technically good. I'm not claiming the game is great. I'm saying that what you said is silly, unsubstantiated, and the very anthesis of why internet "deductions" are considered to be so insignificant.   You justified the IGN review as being correct because it is the lowest, and attempted to marginalize the many more numerious reviews, because you certainly don't think the game is great.   Then, you attempt to tell me, though you haven't played the game, that the game is good, but not great.   Again, get real. I'm not telling you what it is either way, but when you try to tell me what it is, or isn't with not even the slightest kind of real life fact or backing for your opinion, except that you saw the game and didn't like it because its not "technically good" from a graphical standpoint?   Are you trying to be taken seriously, because I think what you said is very close to trolling. It's not provable and not even logical.   I believe there is a deeper reason you are opposed to this games quality, and its silliness. It's cherry picking the worst possible review to degrade the game, without previous admitting your biased, whatever that maybe. It's infuriating, honestly, because I doubt you would play this game even if you had it, and I believe that if IGN have given it a 10/10 and every other site gave it perfect scores, but gamespot gave it a 7/10, you would be on this very post flaming the game, as you are now, for getting a low score.   It's like lying by omission.   Either way, you can't deny the game is critically acclaimed, because it is. It's nearly a 90/100 on gamerankings, and climbing(just got another 9/10). Do you deny the opinion that the game is critically acclaimed?

Fine, I said things that are unsubstantiated. But in the end, it's my opinion. I didn't tell you to believe in anything except for the fact NMH was dissapointing to me due to its technical flaws.

Secondly, I read IGN's review and judged it on its content, not its score. I also watched the Gametrailers review and also agreed with what it was said there, not because of it's score and I'm saying I don't think it deserves 9s. Can you get that?

Thirdly, what do you know about me to start accusing me of biased? Did you know that I was actually looking forward to this game and then only to fine dissapointment because of its technical flaws? This is one game I can sadly say, crossed off my list to get.

Edit-IGN's review was not a bad review. You simply looked at its scored at slam it right there. I've been a long time follower of IGN and I tend to agree with most of the things they review, at least for the games I'm looking at.

Edit 2: Ah damn, I contradicted myself. Whether it gets 8s or 9s, the game has some technical flaws that I cannot overlooked. That's my position.

 I think you're probably right to group NMH in with AC. This strikes me as another 'love it or hate it' game. It shines brilliantly in a few aspects, and falls a little short in others. Your affection for the title will depend on how much weight you give to these different attributes.

 Personally, I've been crazy about this game's style since the teaser was released under the title "Heroes." And boss fights are probably my favourite part of any game, so I doubt I'll be disappointed in this game.

@totalwar23

As always, you have a complete right to your opinion, at all times. I thought you were attempting to present deductions in a "matter of fact" type manner.

I'll just assume your statements are opinions, when appropriate, in the future, and attempt not to rant on you like I did back there.

I'll be getting it tomorrow as well. Can't wait. About 70k first week. Could have done a lot better if they actually advertised teh game. Makes me mad. Oh well. Can't complain about bad sales if you don't market properly. I'm just hoping it'll catch on from the good reviews its getting. And that someone has heard of its brand. Hope for good sales.

i guess the best hope is for this game to have good legs. hopefully good reviews do that.

unfortunately, i won't be among those who purchase this game. maybe down the road i'll buy this as a gift for someone.

after reading IGN review I feel kinda sad, been looking forward to it for so long now all I can think off is frame rate and control issues but mainly I know the lack of mission restart will really annoy me to the point of throwing controller off the wall.

The wife and I literaly spent days when the wii first launched on some of the very last Tony Hawks downhill jam missions just retrying over and over again - this gives you so much satisfaction when one of you finally does it and the other is on the edge of their seat egging you on.

Why deliberetly remove that from a game? I just dont get it