My problems with sunshine had nothing to do with it's review scores. It had to do with it's repetitive environments and glitchy camera angles. I never thought it was a bad game, just not as good as it could have been. Again though, it's not just all reviewers claiming this is at least 15 hours, but even one of Legend's own sources called it 15-20 for most gamers.

What Legend did was cherry picking. What everyone else did was follow the overwhelming flood of evidence. Even if we assumed the first of Legend's reviews was correct, and everything Legend said was true, he was still comparing the effect of achievements on a game's length to the effect of entire levels....

I can confirm it takes for a normal gamer at least 15 hours to complete the game, but with every star it takes a lot longer (its harder getting the later stars), i can also say collecting stars isn't the same as achievements, every time you play for a star you play something new, it's different from SM64. In Sm64 the levels didn't really change, but in galaxy almost always the level only hold it's mean theme and then it totally changes (Is also becouse you will reach other planets, floating platforms the 2 second time then you did the first time), it's really redicoulus who much is in this game.

Dodece, I believe you've jumped the gun on this one by giving a tad too much credit to the merit and intent of Legend's argument.

While it is true that reviewers are people who have subjective opinions just like anyone else, there's no arguing the difference in weight of credibility that can be allotted to the consensus of a wide ranging field of pseudo-professionals who have to be held to some merit of their ability to review games over a few miscellaneous individuals on a message forum who need not be held in any way to the veracity of their claims.

Are people overly defensive of Super Mario Galaxy? Yes... Had the OP actually brought up a legitimate issue with Super Mario Galaxy would the Nintendo fanboys have hung themselves with the noose of hypocrisy as you seem to think is the case here? Most likely... However it just so happens that the OP didn't have a legitimate issue to present and the Nintendo fanboys, despite their earnestly to defend SMG, just so happened to be in the right.

No matter how you slice it, in the end when its all said and done Legend11's claims boiled down to little more than peddling mere hearsay as an excuse to essentially pick a fight. His stance is not the chaste cause you fancy it in your harsh scolding of the opposition and it is a pity to see you have rushed so hastily into a thread, that judging from your response, could have probably benefited from a second glance.

Come on guys... cut it out...

Legend might pull another "Goodbye forever everyone! I'm leaving this site, sorry it had to be this way" thread if you keep it up.

Avalach21 said: Come on guys... cut it out... Legend might pull another "Goodbye forever everyone! I'm leaving this site, sorry it had to be this way" thread if you keep it up.

 At this risk of being too blunt, if he can't admit his mistake here I have to ask what kind of deterence is that?

I'd like him to stick around as he provides a different view point and definitely has added to the site quite a bit.  But, in the past when he has been caught with his hand in the "completely wrong" jar he had a problem admitting it and this is just a continuation of that issue.  But if people calling him out when he is wrong is a reason for him to stop visiting the site then he should probably stop visiting because people aren't going to stop correcting mistakes.

I hope he doesn't find it necessary to leave the site but if he does that tells me it's probably for the best.

SeriousWB said: Great Scott DonWii!!  I fold... @vizunary, If you were actually interested about the topic, and not justing looking for a good ol' flame you would've read through the thread.

no, i was simply over exaggerating everyones fierce response to Legend11, obviously he did not do alot of research on the title first, as neither did i, since we both don't own a Wii. it looks like he came across something, posted it, then got jumped 10 times over and beat like a red headed stepchild. i actually do have some interest in this game, as i've said in other threads, it actually seems like it may redeem mario from the hordes of crap N's been putting him in since SM64. super paper mario was great fun as well, but it did not make up for all mario partys that have come out. @naz, you should be able to recognise my over the top sarcasm when you see it. like i said, i feel the reaction to Legend11 was too much is all.

Legend11 said: People are missing the point of this thread, it isn't to bash Super Mario Galaxy, it's to bash the people who define a game by a set number of hours and then bash it if the number of hours is low. In the case of some of the games I've mentioned it's obvious that the people who define the game as being under 10 hours haven't completed all the challenges in them. For example take a game like Halo 3, some of the people who bash the game talk about the single player component of the game as being under 10 hours, yet anyone who has tried to find all of the skulls for example knows that without cheating it definitely takes a lot longer than 10 hours to find them all. One skull in particular is notoriously hard to find, with many people having spent 20 or more hours just trying to find it. I guess I won't be able to get through to some of the people who judge games like I've mentioned, since they apparently just come up with new excuses to justify their views and don't see what they're doing is wrong. If you want to believe the challenges in SMG are somehow more worthy than those in some other games that's your choice but at the end of the day it's time that completists are putting into a game to get as much as they possibly can out of it and I really don't agree that an hour in one game should be considered any less worthy than an hour in another.

as much as i feel like another sarcastic rant to get behind this idea... alas, i'll refrain. instead i'll just say i very much agree with your last sentence.

SMG is short/average ... it is ok.
I still prefer 20 hours of bioshock than 300 hours of standard multiplayer FPS !

libellule said: SMG is short/average ... it is ok.

There is no indication that this is the case.  All the reviews point to it being 15-20 for most folks to beat it with 60 stars etc...we will have to wait and see to be sure though.

 

@vizunary, 

"If you want to believe the challenges in SMG are somehow more worthy than those in some other games that's your choice but at the end of the day it's time that completists are putting into a game to get as much as they possibly can out of it and I really don't agree that an hour in one game should be considered any less worthy than an hour in another. "

I really hope this isn't the sentence you were agreeing with.  The fact is that time spent in one game is never equal to time spent in another game. Unless you want to say that a 10 hour session of Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing is just as fun as a 10 hour MP session with Halo 3 or working your way through the campaign of MP3.

I don't think you grasp either what we are talking about or the difference.  It would be like beating the first part of GTA: San Andreas and finding out there was an entire island just as big as the first island after it with more story more missions etc instead of all of the collection stuff they have you do with Tags, Shells, Photos, stunts, etc...which would you prefer to do? Collect stuff in places you have already played through or play through new content and more story in a new place?

How many people would spend the time to complete the new missions and how many people would go through and find all of the tags and shells etc...?  The answer is of course that a whole hell of a lot more people would do the extra missions because they are actual content as opposed to "explore where you've already been" content.  The two aren't even close to the same thing and normal people will play through one and not the other...so I think it's pretty clear why one is more meaningful.

The comparison is ludicrous. 

Facts:
-Galaxy can be beaten in fifteen minutes
-Heavenly Sword takes five days if you listen to all 30 gigs of audio
-That chick from page 2 of this thread is really a dude