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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Super Mario3D World + Bowsers Fury ~ IGN Review

hinch said:
dx11332sega said:

I'm still perplexed why a 7?

Non effort port and a smallish DLC for full price and full release. I mean its a great game but a low-key effort from Nintendo that not everyone will appreciate. Particularly if you already played it already on on Wii U. Otherise, its a must have for any Switch owner.

So we are reviewing the correlation between price and quality now and not just quality? What madness is this?

Scores are assigned to the quality of the game. It should have nothing to do with the cost of the game.



Around the Network

People need to stop being so invested in review scores.

At the end of the day, a reviewer is a mere human being like you or me, and a review is just their opinion.

Honestly, the hysteria that goes on whenever a popular or hyped game scores less than a 9/10 has gotten pretty ridiculous. 



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

TruckOSaurus said:
JWeinCom said:

That actually kind of makes sense. Sticker star gives you no reason to engage in combat, and thus there is generally no consequence to death. Apparently, this reviewer doesn't like it when games provide some semblance of challenge.

Do you remember the guy that used to make posts here about trying games but always complaining they were too hard when he clearly didn't bother to learn the mechanics of it? Well, I think that guy got himself a job at IGN.

You might be on to something, maybe its the same guy.



我是广州人

Dulfite said:
hinch said:

Non effort port and a smallish DLC for full price and full release. I mean its a great game but a low-key effort from Nintendo that not everyone will appreciate. Particularly if you already played it already on on Wii U. Otherise, its a must have for any Switch owner.

So we are reviewing the correlation between price and quality now and not just quality? What madness is this?

Scores are assigned to the quality of the game. It should have nothing to do with the cost of the game.

I'm not a reviewer so I wouldn't know. However value is one aspect a lot of people consider in reviews (in general) so it should be applicable to someone reviewing video games.

Say for example, a smaller scale game like Spiderman Miles Morales (an expansion) would be a rip off at full price and even at $50 its not that great value for money when it is essentially a 10 hour game, it might reflect or have an impact a persons review.

However this isn't a 7/10 game imo, but this is an opinion piece from an outlet. No need to get over up in arms over a single digit or two in a review score, yeesh. (Not directing this at you btw)



hinch said:
Dulfite said:

So we are reviewing the correlation between price and quality now and not just quality? What madness is this?

Scores are assigned to the quality of the game. It should have nothing to do with the cost of the game.

I'm not a reviewer so I wouldn't know. However value is one aspect a lot of people consider in reviews (in general) so it should be applicable to someone reviewing video games.

Say for example, a smaller scale game like Spiderman Miles Morales (an expansion) would be a rip off at full price and even at $50 its not that great value for money when it is essentially a 10 hour game, it might reflect or have an impact a persons review.

However this isn't a 7/10 game imo, but this is an opinion piece from an outlet. No need to get over up in arms over a single digit or two in a review score, yeesh. (Not directing this at you btw)

I agree no one should be up in arms. I said my last comment amusingly btw, not annoyed lol. Internet doesn't detect tone of voice sadly.

I don't connect review scores and value, personally. If I want to know the value of the game I do research on it. The review score, to me, tells me how well the game did at what it was trying to do in the genre it fits inside. But that's just me and that's fair we all look at review scores differently. Thank you for explaining your perspective.



Around the Network

I agree with IGN's review. One of the dumbest things about 3D World are the lives. If you play multiplayer especially it just gets in the way over and over. Every person I know quickly sets up an unlimited jump on world 1-2 and gets 200 lives, then goes about playing the game. The fact that everyone I know immediately gets 200 lives before playing, enough said about how "lives" in 3D World doesn't make sense...

The game is more expensive than ever, I love the game, one of my favorite games on Wii U. It also only takes a few hours to beat with my friend. That's it. Not a lot of content for $60 (almost $100 in Canada). The new content doesn't have the co-op support of the old content either. It's fine, but it is Xbox 360 level graphics in 2021. I love the game, but I don't think there is value for someone like me that has played it before. It hasn't been upgraded, no "double the frame rate" or remastered graphics here.

I personally think Nintendo should change the price to $40 and then it might deserve an 8 or 9. I don't think the game is so amazing so much as the fun I have with my best friend playing it, and that should be reflected in the score. It's an 8 at best for a single player game, and a solid 9/10 for co-op, at a lower price.

I'm going to be buying Mass Effect Legendary Edition for $60. Then instead of less than 10 hours of content, I'll have over 100 hours. The first game will be remastered and new features added across all 3, textures upgraded to PS4 level. That's a $60 release in 2021.

Last edited by Alistair - on 14 February 2021

It’s personally a 10 out pf 10 game in my book. Got it and did everything on the Wii U version, and will do it all again on the Switch version, Champion’s Road be damned!

I have yet to play Bowser’s Fury, since I just managed to finally get a PS5. So I’ve been mostly gaming on it and testing BC enhanced games on it. I also have to mention that Team Asobi may very well be the “Nintendo” of Sony, after having played Astro’s Playroom. This pack-in game reminds me a lot of Nintendo’s design DNA.

But I digress. I have the next two days off, so I’ll get to Bowser’s Fury tomorrow. From what I saw, it looks really fun and different enough from other 3D Mario.



hinch said:
dx11332sega said:

I'm still perplexed why a 7?

Non effort port and a smallish DLC for full price and full release. I mean its a great game but a low-key effort from Nintendo that not everyone will appreciate. Particularly if you already played it already on on Wii U. Otherise, its a must have for any Switch owner.

They didn't give it a 7 because it's a low effort port, they did it because the game kind of sucks, according to the reviewer. 



My bet with The_Liquid_Laser: I think the Switch won't surpass the PS2 as the best selling system of all time. If it does, I'll play a game of a list that The_Liquid_Laser will provide, I will have to play it for 50 hours or complete it, whatever comes first. 

Alistair said:

I agree with IGN's review. One of the dumbest things about 3D World are the lives. If you play multiplayer especially it just gets in the way over and over. Every person I know quickly sets up an unlimited jump on world 1-2 and gets 200 lives, then goes about playing the game. The fact that everyone I know immediately gets 200 lives before playing, enough said about how "lives" in 3D World doesn't make sense...



It also only takes a few hours to beat with my friend.

The new content doesn't have the co-op support of the old content either. 

I find people interesting.  For starters my nine year old twin girls have made it to level 4 without having to worry about lives...  but full grown adults, whom are suppose to be hardcore gamers, need 200 lives?  I also find it odd people are worried about lives.  For starters the game saves after each level, literally after each level (not world, but level).  And when playing if a player runs out lives, they simply reappear with 5 more lives per character.  So if you are playing 4 player, 3 people die and there are no lives left, after the level the game saves and 15 lives are given out.  I fully respect the opinions of others, but I simply do not get this one.  What is the concern with running out of lives?  Simply reappearing with more lives?    

The game is shorter than  many, but a few hours seems like a gross exaggeration unless you are speed running the game.  Main story is 10 hours, with a completionists at 38 hours (https://howlongtobeat.com/game?id=9362).  

I don't fully understand you coop comment.  The new content isn't 4-player, but still supports coop.  Frankly one of the reasons I love Nintendo, is they are the only ones left who support couch coop.  

As for my opinion, the game is really good.  The largest complaint I have (which IGN hit on) is after about world 3, 4 player is just a non go.  Far too hectic with too much going on.  Two player is optimal.  



The game is not a 7 any way you slice it