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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Super Mario Odyssey Reviews - 97 Metacritic (91 Reviews) - 97 OpenCritic (84 Reviews)

Ganoncrotch said:


LET ME OPEN YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Yeah, it's so cruel! It's right there, fully loaded and Nintendo won't let me play it!



Signature goes here!

Around the Network
caffeinade said:
Proxy-Pie said:

Yes. About 1750 Israeli Shekels.

That sucks.
I thought it was bad having to pay 69 USD for first party titles.

The Switch is about 360 USD here.

Heh yeah it's annoying. I think games range from 75-80$ here.

Stuff like this is why most of my 3DS games are digital, though I recently found out that ordering games from PlayAsia is a little bit cheaper. Ordering consoles on the other hand is not, there are so many invisible fees that are basically incalculable. I learned that the hard way when I ordered a 3DS XL back in 2013, and ended up paying over 500$ USD once shipping and customs fees are added.



Ganoncrotch said:


LET ME OPEN YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

yes that is me also. I just hope my kids don't wake up before me and get the first playsession before i do



I bet this would have a 99 if it didn't sound like it's not very challenging outside of exploration for finding some moons. Seems to be about the only gripe any critics really have.



BraLoD said:
Nautilus said:

I know you dont like to admit, but you ARE  a Sony enthusiast.Not that you dont or cant appreciatte what Nintendo or MS is able to do, but much like I dont feel really excited when MS reveals something that gets other people hyped, you dont get enthusiastic with the games Nintendo releases, either because you have been so distant from the type of games that Nintendo makes and the charm it brings with it or simply because you grew so accoustomed with the type of games that are released on the PS4 that you dont see really why games like BOTW or Oddyssey are getting the fanfare they are getting.And lets face it, the same way that Nintendo systems havent received games like Uncharted, GTA and Bloodborne for a LONG time(in terms of tone)(and at least in a sufficient number), Sony consoles dont have the type of games that Nintendo usually produces, either in genre or just in personality and charm.

There is a reason why these games are getting the scores they are getting, much like there is a reason why Nintendo survived this long in the industry as a software and hardware developer.They are really, REALLY good at what they do.BOTW and Oddyssey are not only entries on the most recognizables videogame franchises of all history, but they are radically different takes on such franchises, and they have done it masterfully, much like the reviews shows.There is no conspiracy behind those scores.

Simply put, they are games that excell on what they do.

I don't really get this remarks you keep trying to push about me...

I'm a PlayStation enthusiast, Sony makes great consoles and great games, my all time top 3 has come from their studios, they are my favorite gaming company, where did I ever try to hide that? I make top lists, spread love about the games I love all the time.

I also don't really appreciate MS, that's about their entirety, not the XBOX brand per se.

And still, nothing bout that has anything to do with it.

I'm sad vivster is the one to get my point, even vivster! Damn.

Im not pushing anything.Im just, as you said, making some remarks about you.

And I was just trying to explain to you, as others have pointed out, why Nintendo managed two games with a 97 score.Or why it got a MK with a 92.Its not bias(outside of the pedigree that Nintendo has), Nintendo is simply releasing good games.There are still the "trolls" reviews.Plus, not every 10 needs to be a completely perfect game.If the game outshines and more than compensates for its small flaws, the game still deserves the score it gets.Specially since there is no such thing as a game 100% without flaws.

I just have been extra "pushy" with you because thats not the first time you made such a remark about a Nintendo game without any evidence or anything to point out that reviewers are being biased towards Nintendo.Thats all.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Around the Network
vivster said:

You cannot deny that there is a certain widespread positive bias towards Nintendo's big hitters. It doesn't have to be interntional bias. It certainly is worth noting that the big franchises of Nintendo get a whole lot more 10/10s despite reviewers acknowledging flaws.

I gurantee you if this game did not feature Mario and was not related to Nintendo it would get 92 tops. Every other game gets its flaws marked down in the score. Maybe it's a different expectation of reviewers.

Maybe I should clarify more: The problem I have with BraLoD's post isn't that he pointed out a bias, the problem I had with it is that he acted like it was the only bias, or at least the only important bias.

The reality is that, intentionally or unintentionally, big review sites almost always have a bias towards triple A games. And despite the accusations that reviewers give higher scores to bigger games for views, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the time it was simply an unintentional casuality. Reviewers are gamers, and they go in wanting to justify the hype these games get. I remember when I got BOTW I thought it wa awesome, now I think that I was wearing rose tinted glasses. I mean, it's still great, but being on that train definitely clouded my judgement. 

While I think it is true that there are, in certain scenarios, huge biases for Nintendo (see: Skyward Sword review), I also think that Odyssey might not be a case for this. Let me give you an example. I'm playing Uncharted 2 right now, and at best it's like an 80/100 to me. Now in the culture of reviewers, Uncharted 4 comes out and it's this huge send off to the series that everyone and their mom loves, it's being heavily advertised by Sony, the hype is real, etc. I, an IGN reviewer, give that game a 9/10. Now, Super Mario Odyssey comes out. And I'm enjoying it wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more than Uncharted 4. But I gave Uncharted 4 a 9! So what do I do to show how special of a game Odyssey is, in a year with a lot of 9+ games? I give it a 10. The "10" score more often then not is used to show off how special a game is in a specific year or time period(generation) then it is the true quality of the game.

Now I don't know if that's why Odyssey got a 10, it could be Nintendo bias, but the problem is moreso systematic I feel. Almost all triple A games deserve a lower score then they got. I'm also not 100% confident in that analysis, becauses different reviewers feel different things. Maybe for some reviewers at IGN, they don't care about creating a score consistent with the values of the site. For some reviewers at IGN, they absolutely do(which seems to be the case for a majority of reviewers, seeing as how almost all IGN reviews are an 8.5 or a 9). 

Another problem is expectations. I don't know if IGN reviews their games entirely on the game's singular merit, or if they review it in the context of the market, but some of their reviews like the ones infamously for COD, definitely focus on the echo-chamber of the COD ethos moreso than how important they are for the market.

To go back to point #1(Paragraph 3), IGN only had ONE complaint about Odyssey, and that was very very occasional camera issues that were minimized almost entirely by an options menu. I think there was another complaint, but I couldn't find it in the review. Point is the complaints were so small, it became almost pointless to dock the game points. On IGN's scale. On my scale i'd be fucking nitpicking to death, talking about this mechanic and that world etc. But this is IGN we're talking about. But i'm not IGN, or a big reviewer handing out 8's and 9's like candy.

Maybe there are some games that benefit greatly from being Nintendo IP. That could be said for nearly every game though. I wonder how worse the scores for Uncharted would be if they were from another developer. And of course let's remember bias can genuinely be a great way of critiquing a game. If you don't have the experience of previous Zelda games you might love Breath of the Wild. But if you have played the older Zelda games, you might have a different opinion entirely. Experience inherently equals some measure of bias, not bias that is inherently there from the start, but bias that begins as you start to form an opinion on the game.

The point is, I can't really deny there is a Nintendo bias, but I think the biggest issue is a systematic inflation of scores and a falsehood - a lack of equivalency, between what the reviewer is saying, and what the score means.

Sorry for the long post, here's a loli : 



Much like Play! Zine, Bralod is better left ignored.



morenoingrato said:
Much like Play! Zine, Bralod is better left ignored.

How rude.

I agree.



morenoingrato said:
Much like Play! Zine, Bralod is better left ignored.

Why? Just because he isnt a Nintendo fanatic, his opinions should just be ignored? He even says Nintendo makes good games.

This site is really harsh on people who ever dare to question anything about Nintendo. Its ridiculous.



KLXVER said:
morenoingrato said:
Much like Play! Zine, Bralod is better left ignored.

Why? Just because he isnt a Nintendo fanatic, his opinions should just be ignored? He even says Nintendo makes good games.

This site is really harsh on people who ever dare to question anything about Nintendo. Its ridiculous.

Yeah, maybe I was being disrespectful towards Play! Zine. I shouldn't discount their opinion since at least they played and completed the game.