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

Forums - Nintendo - How can a review like this even count?

Qumulox on 07 September 2009

This is incredible... The same guys who gave odin sphere 92% give muramasa, who is basicly the same game, a 69%. Anyone who says that this score isn't based on the fact that the game is on the wii is wrong.



Around the Network
Millennium on 07 September 2009
routsounmanman said:
theprof00 said:
hey, reviewers are gamers too. There are gamers who like the wii and who don't like the wii. Most reviewers and critics are paid to be personable, not professional robots. Of course personality is going to shine through.

Then MAYBE people who like the Wii should review Wii games. I actually laughed when IGN bitched about Fire Emblem not having Mii support.


What would you have even used Mii support for in that game? Well, actually, now that I think about it, I can see one really big use for Mii support: tagging save files. In multi-gamer households like mine, tagging save files with Miis is a friggin godsend in those games which allow it, and more games should use it (hell; Nintendo should release an SDK so that all new games could use it).

Complexity is not depth. Machismo is not maturity. Obsession is not dedication. Tedium is not challenge. Support gaming: support the Wii.

Be the ultimate ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today! Poisson Village welcomes new players.

What do I hate about modern gaming? I hate tedium replacing challenge, complexity replacing depth, and domination replacing entertainment. I hate the outsourcing of mechanics to physics textbooks, art direction to photocopiers, and story to cheap Hollywood screenwriters. I hate the confusion of obsession with dedication, style with substance, new with gimmicky, old with obsolete, new with evolutionary, and old with time-tested.
There is much to hate about modern gaming. That is why I support the Wii.

darthdevidem01 on 07 September 2009

and one thinks why the videogame industry STILL isn't respected despite now earning more money yearly than the movie & music one



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

griffinA on 07 September 2009
mike_intellivision said:
The problem is not that there are biased -- and in this case obviously biased reviewers.

The problem is that these biased scores get incorporated into the meta-review-score sites (Gamerankings and Metacritic). Then people cite the rankings on these sites as evidence of the quality of a console (or lack of quality on another).

It is amazing to me the anti-Wii rhetoric that gets spouted by some reviewers -- it is as bad as politics.

Mike from Morgantown

Indeed.



"Pier was a chef, a gifted and respected chef who made millions selling his dishes to the residents of New York City and Boston, he even had a famous jingle playing in those cities that everyone knew by heart. He also had a restaurant in Los Angeles, but not expecting LA to have such a massive population he only used his name on that restaurant and left it to his least capable and cheapest chefs. While his New York restaurant sold kobe beef for $100 and his Boston restaurant sold lobster for $50, his LA restaurant sold cheap hotdogs for $30. Initially these hot dogs sold fairly well because residents of los angeles were starving for good food and hoped that the famous name would denote a high quality, but most were disappointed with what they ate. Seeing the success of his cheap hot dogs in LA, Pier thought "why bother giving Los Angeles quality meats when I can oversell them on cheap hotdogs forever, and since I don't care about the product anyways, why bother advertising them? So Pier continued to only sell cheap hotdogs in LA and was surprised to see that they no longer sold. Pier's conclusion? Residents of Los Angeles don't like food."

"The so-called "hardcore" gamer is a marketing brainwashed, innovation shunting, self-righteous idiot who pays videogame makers far too much money than what is delivered."

VTnev27 on 09 September 2009
griffinA said:
mike_intellivision said:
The problem is not that there are biased -- and in this case obviously biased reviewers.

The problem is that these biased scores get incorporated into the meta-review-score sites (Gamerankings and Metacritic). Then people cite the rankings on these sites as evidence of the quality of a console (or lack of quality on another).

It is amazing to me the anti-Wii rhetoric that gets spouted by some reviewers -- it is as bad as politics.

Mike from Morgantown

Indeed.


Sad but true, on both counts.



Around the Network
im_sneaky on 09 September 2009

It is the anti-Wii conspiracy by all reviewers. That must be it. They hate the Wii. Why? Who knows.



 

 

amp316 on 09 September 2009

I thought that the review was pretty well written and the pros and cons were pretty well outlined by the author of the review. Unfortunately, he ended it with that horrible conclusion that discredits everything that was mentioned earlier and makes it look extremely biased.



Proud member of the SONIC SUPPORT SQUAD

Tag "Sorry man. Someone pissed in my Wheaties."

"There are like ten games a year that sell over a million units."  High Voltage CEO -  Eric Nofsinger

Kasz216 on 09 September 2009
theprof00 said:
hey, reviewers are gamers too. There are gamers who like the wii and who don't like the wii. Most reviewers and critics are paid to be personable, not professional robots. Of course personality is going to shine through.

Yeah... uh.  That's the problem.

 

Reviewers aren't gamers.  They're reviewers.  Reviewing something isn't "Do i like it."

Take a class on cristicism and you'll understand.

 

For example Roger Ebert may personally not like a movie yet he may still rate it well if it fits the critera about what that genre of game should be.


That's why game reviews in general are stupid.



Kenryoku_Maxis on 10 September 2009
marktheshark275 said:
I'm betting that reviewer would probably give Muramasa like 15 to 20 more pts if it was released for a different system.

I'm positive that the majority of 'review' sites would have given this game 90% or the equivalent markings if it had been on the XBOX360 or PS3.

Clearly it has become evident by now that review sites have a heavy anti Wii/DS bias.  If the lower avg scores don't show this off, then surely the weekly jabs at Nintendo and their systems and games should.  From blatant references of IGN and GameSpot articles referring to the Wii as a 'kiddy system' to various 1up and GameInformer articles referring to DS games as being 'inferior'.  I mean, why are people even still reading these things unless they're just staunch 360/PS3 fans looking for ammo to fuel the console wars?

At least one good thing is coming out of the terrible Muramasa reviews.  A lot of people seem ticked off by the game generating suck pitifully obvious low scores.  This isn't a simple 7.5 for Madworld from GameSpot.  This seems like a deliberate target of Wii games where scores continue to get lower for each higher quality game that comes out.  I mean, when a game comes out that clearly surpasses its predecessors and is one of the better games on the system and yet has an AVG of 75% from Critics.....there's something fishy in the pond here.

I bet of this game has the label 'Castlevania' on it and was on the XBOX360, it would have gotten a 9.5 easy.



Six upcoming games you should look into:

 

  

sc94597 on 10 September 2009

..... I'm not even going to bother with this review. I would like to say though, that for about a year now, I haven't been following reviews as closely as I use to because of this obvious bias.