Scorpi

The MGS/Zelda comparison is incredibly accurate. Good one. What wows me is that you fail to realize the level of evolution in each game series is pretty damn identical. MGS3 actually ran into a wall that way, putting the same gameplay style into a world that demanded different core mechanics (which they fixed in a later update). Is that what you want from Zelda or other games? To get re-released fixed up? If everyone had the luxury to display insecurity in their own work that would be dandy, but rereleasing EVERY MGS game in patched or updated versions has made Konami look like they rush the games to begin with. God knows those games got a heap better with the updated camera.

Every new Zelda game, wether you "think so" or not, puts a new spin on the franchise, occationally drastically (like with Wind waker), and you're missing out on it because you're too busy moaning that there's a boomerang and a hookshot again and that Ganon's stealing the triforce. Ingrate.

Complaining about the SMG AI may be the most vividly insane thing i've seen in a while. Enemies in Mario games are and always have been geography to be traversed; The objective of the game was never combat, it was level traversal. Complaining about its art puts you in an extreme minority. Ingrate.

For me, this has nothing to do with Nintendo games specifically; it has to do with your inability to realize just how much of a fine art they've made from their style of craftsmanship. This counts for everyone that tries to discredit any game developer that's forged its own sub-genre and completely mastered it uncompromisingly on their own terms. You are perfectly welcome to ignore them and go back to whatever it is that you enjoy doing, but stepping into the ring like you've got the heft to actually DISCREDIT them requires far, far better arguments than you've mustered.

What you're doing is telling a master sushi chef his Makizushi needs to be fried before it's any good. It's staggeringly arrogant. Just don't order it in the first place.

Sunjammer

ssh83

Sure, props to a game that includes a deep, involving plot and voice work. Most likely though, the game needs that. The plot is obviously integral to the game. Does that mean we have to penalize other games for not having these things, even if they'd make no sense there? If Galaxy had a Bioshock-style plot, would we be fawning over it as some marvel of gaming? Or if the goofy star-people or various Toads had voice actors? I would imagine a large, red, capitalized no to fall on my head if I ever asked such a question aloud.

Ampillion, Dayman. Fighter of the Nightman.

TheBlackWatch

Don't get me wrong, I'm not too fond of Halo 3 and some other 10/10 games, but who gives a damn about review scores anymore? In today's world where scores fluctuate at any given moment and only seem to agree on truly bad games (ie: shovelware, broken, etc.), scores for games like Twilight Princess, Brawl, Galaxy, Halo, MGS, Bioshock, GTA, etc. are only used as a means for fanboys to rub it in the face of other fanboys. Who the hell cares if Brawl is a 7 or an 8 or a 9 or a 10 game, because as far as I can see thousands of people are enjoying it regardless of score and vice versa. If we didn't care about scores, there wouldn't have been that whole spectale about a freaking 8.9 rating for Zelda, which somehow is a lot worse than a 9.

Get rid of the numerical scoring, but that's not all! Why don't we write reviews not for the fanboys online, but for the Common Joe looking to make a purchase. Sites like Gamespot, IGN, 1up, and so on are limited in their appeal because they're online sites known only by gaming fanatics who consist, for the most part, of fanboys or at least people who'll get certain games regardless of score. Fanboys can be eliminated if video game reviews are expanded beyond the internet and to the common masses, most if not all of which hold no allegiance to certain franchises and systems. Fanboys can still whine online, but game reviewers won't give a damn when the other 3/4 of their audience doesn't care which system wins.

Ninja-Z

I especially agree about Smash Bros. Brawl.

Homard

When games are reviewed, they are not treated like art. They are treated as pieces of entertainment, and they judge these pieces on a scale of how potentially fun it can be. Both R&C and Galaxy are equally fun. You just might prefer the aesthetics of one over the other, because they are more complex, or more detailed. That doesn't make it a better game. Games are, and rightfully should, be judged on how fun they are, and those things don't directly affect that for everyone.

Ampillion, Dayman. Fighter of the Nightman.

Also, I said it before, but I don't think they're getting a free pass (in this case, anyway, with Zelda, yes) because of mascots, because... well, Power Stone 1/2 were pretty fucking fun and similar, yet that had only original (goofy) characters.

There was also that Konami game which was terrible. That had a bunch of mascots (Snake, Optimus Prime) yet it wasn't so hot, review wise. Why? It just wasn't fucking fun. So yeah, I still don't think Brawl was the best example here.

I like the Nintendo characters more so than any other brands, yes, but that wouldn't cloud my judgment on a game, and I'm sure it wouldn't cloud a professional reviewer's, either. I love Optimus Prime, but I still realize that Konami's Smash like fighter was pretty terrible.

Drake Lake: Phase Lunaire

goddammit, i fucking HATE nintendo nerds.

SoulPunch

so, a game that uses a now ten-year-old engine is "superior craftsmanship" gimme a break. you just proved the point about the nintendo free pass and didn't even know it. congrats.

SoulPunch

SoulPunch

And by the way? See the word "major" in there, I'm in college, damn near 23, and your misguided assumption about not appreciating the old console wars of Atari, Sega, and Nintendo is entirely mute. No one's saying graphics are more important than gameplay, you're just rambling about something irrelevant. I did say i wasn't impressed by Twilight Princess' graphics, but that was far, far from my main points about the game's problems. Appreciating old games and calling for advancement in new ones are not mutually exclusive. An older game in a franchise being a genre staple is not an excuse for rehashing the same thing. Again, Meta Gear Solid is the "Proto" stealth action game, and it continues to flourish with great gameplay, great plots, fantastic dialog, and new gameplay elements very frequently. If you want to play the same game over and over, then do so. And because I don't want to, I don't. And feel free to talk about it like a reasonably intelligent person. The difference is I don't blind myself or lose my temper or intelligence with old biases from a happy childhood, and try to ask for objectivity in others as much as I do myself. Especially from reviewers, members of the media, whose job it is to remain objective.

No one here is comparing flight sims and fighters, it's another asinine argument, and of all the arguments to use, saying that Zelda has no peers and can't be compared is ridiculous. It's perfectly valid to compare two games within the same genre, regardless of how much you wanna believe that your favorite whatever is a peerless masterpiece far beyond the comprehension or judgment of others. It's certainly true that a review can never be completely objective, but there are certainly degrees to which you can try, starting with relative comparisons and avoiding fanboyism.

TheBlackWatch

@TheBlackWatch: You ingrate. "MIDI quality music"? I'm a classicaly educated musician with over 20 years of living for it on my back. I was breast fed Chopin, Brahms, Beethoven and i went to primary school owning Gyorgy Ligeti on vinyl. What kind of bullshit farmhand attitude is it to assume the method by which you produce your music has any effect what so fucking ever on the actual quality of the work. WASTED on your ears. Go fucking play Burnout Paradise and listen to Avril Lavigne tracks as you play, because that's exactly what you're asking for. Any better and you wouldn't fucking recognize it. The twilight princess soundtrack is a monumental achievement, regardless of its "midi quality". What the fuck does that even mean. It IS midi! Digest that for a moment.

You ingrate. No voice acting? You can't read? Was the game hard to understand? An enormous part of the game world's charm is the idea that these characters are speaking a non human language, and that's a design choice. If anything you should stop being such a fucking baby and accept the fact that reading isn't for nerds.

What the fuck is wrong with you. "Scoring higher than other games in it's genre?" Zelda is the PROTO action adventure, and for a game that's been rehashing the same plot over and over for over 20 years it's still got more finesse in its left buttcheek than most games "in it's genre". It IS it's own genre; Developers look to IT for inspiration!

Fucking ingrates, it makes me think you weren't even around when Sega and Nintendo were really fighting it out and we wound up actually learning a few lessons from that stupid arms race. All the hard work Sega, Nintendo, Atari and their third party developers put into the fundamentals of the classic prototypes of genres we still enjoy today, and you sit in your own egotistical selfrighteous feces jerking off over what game has the best fucking graphics and the most voice acting when artists work for years to bring you something they loved making. Vacuous shit. It's like my other pet peeve; being at an excellent bar watching dudes ask some of the best bartenders around to give them what's on tap. Pearls before swine. Makes my skin crawl.

In a sense you're confirming what's wrong with standardized reviews. You throw the new Bionic commando on the same numeric scale as betting on horses, you've got a fundamental problem of translation that's gotten far worse since aggregate review sites started popping up; You're taking an irrational number and treating it rationally. With the amount of subjectivity involved in a score, comparing a fighting game to a flight sim becomes a total crapshoot.

Sunjammer

As for not judging games as compared to others...I don't see why you shouldn't when they fall within the same genre. What's the point of a review if not to tell you how it stacks up in the bigger scheme? Where to spend your money? Mario being an older series is not an excuse for not changing with the times...not even close to one. Metal Gear was a Nintendo game, as was Final Fantasy, hell, even the Prince of Persia series has some ancient roots. There are plenty of series that have managed to evolve into great, currently relevant games, so why should that be an excuse? Where the series originated is irrelevant, it just comes back to Nintendo playing it safe wherever possible. Honestly...anyone who makes excuses for saving the Princess in EVERY game has to be demented. Now, i don't really care about Mario's story, but again, if you're going to have text and dialog, then do something with it, don't half-ass it.

Point is...you CAN make sequels to a game and still break away into success. You can introduce new things without failing, as Nintendo proved itself when Link to the Past led to Ocarina of time....very different, both good games. Solid isn't bad. Solid is good. But why should solid get the same recognition as being not only solid, but also daring and original? And, as I'm happy Yahtzee Croshaw pointed out...why is it that so few people are willing to call Nintendo on rehashing the same game? Even to the point of defending it as if no one's ever made a sequel that evolved significantly? You brought up Ubisoft for being buggy, but the main complaint on their newest; Rainbow Six Vegas 2 is that it's part one all over again. I love both games, but it's absolutely true, so despite it being a solid, good game, it by no means deserves EXCELLENT reviews, it deserves solid, positive ones like it's getting. So let's hold all games up to that standard.

TheBlackWatch

User interface is usable and isn't anything I would severely dock points for.

Lack of wii controls? I thought the idea for fighters, even casual party ones as some ignorant people see smash (and how Smash CAN be), was to have precision over your character. The developers gave you plenty of control options and probably felt that motion control would be gimmicky and not work well.

The percentage to be unlocked thing is a matter of opinion. You could say the same thing for just about any game that takes many hours to complete such as Mass Effect or something. You have to complete a high percentage of the game to get a certain level of enjoyment. The payoff for Smash also pretty good and it's supposed to provide LOTS of entertainment. Plus it's not that hard to unlock everything. Go to stamina mode set it to one HP with a flower on you head and within an hour you have all the Characters. Or you can just play the Subspace and unlock 90% of the char.

Graphically, you have to look at the power that is available to use. What is the goal here? To have a game that looks super amazing but has lag or have a game that looks crisp but runs at 60 frames per second as a fighter game should?

As far as gameplay goes... well that's a huge matter of opinion. Melee is one the most advanced games ever, but suffers some from balance issues. Brawl obviously isn't as advanced as Melee but so far as we can tell has a more balanced gameplay which is something a fighter should strive for(except I can't figure out why the Dev's seem to like Marth and Fox so much. They seem to give them a lot of advantages that make them significantly better than a lot of characters). And the gameplay is way different as well. It shouldn't take an expert at the game to know that Brawl feels different than the other two.

Lastly, back in my early days of Smash 64 and Melee... I didn't even know who half of the characters were or why they were significant. Growing up a genesis kid, I'd only heard of the Mario and Pokemon characters, I didn't know who the hell Kirby, Ness, Captain, Falcon, Link, Fox and DK. Move onto melee, after being more VG cultured, still never heard of Marth, Roy, G & W, and many of the other characters were sttil insignificant to me at first.

And yet it still didn't keep me from enjoying and playing what is in my opinion one of the best video game series that has ever existed. I have spent too many hours to count playing this wonderful series.

Article would have worked better if he wasn't blatently wrong on some points.

Mrobinson587

I think what you're missing is that each game cannot be solely judged comparing it to other games in a genre. You can compare, but you can't say 'well X game has this, Y does not. X clearly superior.' Does this feature fit in with Y? Would it make the game any better? Let's go back to R&C and Mario. R&C is quite a new franchise compared to Mario, and as such, benefits a lot more in being 'born' in an era where systems, disc space is much more accommodating of rendered cut scenes, voice acting and the like. Mario has some voice acting, but do you honestly want to hear his voice constantly in a cut scene explaining portions of the plot? Hell, can you really even expect much of a plot from a game that seems based in such an abstract world? R&C was developed in a time when you had a lot more space to work with. Mario on the other hand, comes from an era where you were thrilled that things actually looked vaguely human on screen, let alone had fun playing the game. Mario is stuck where it is, you're not going to develop some sort of Mass Effect world-scape for it at this late date. So deducting something from a title you can't honestly expect certain elements from is foolish.

Games, franchise games especially, have expectations pushed upon them from previous titles. If a game before it sets certain points, it has to revisit those in another title, it can polish some, rework others, tune them... but it is entirely locked in place by those. Otherwise, it's not part of that franchise, and would be something new entirely. Now, if you want to argue that perhaps Nintendo revisits too many of its franchises instead of creating more new worlds every generation, that's a more sound argument, and I can agree with it even as a fan of their games. Griping about not pushing franchises to embrace things from other franchises, only to produce solid games... uh, I was under the impression that we want solid. Do we want more Ubisoft broken gameplay bugs in more games? I mean, I'm sure those guys would love to work for a Nintendo, or a Sony.

Ampillion, Dayman. Fighter of the Nightman.

The music is orchestrated and well done so even if the nostalgic factor of the songs were completely absent, many people would praise the sound quality.
The gameplay, would cement it as a very casually oriented game with some deeper elements to the fighting formula. The story, which is the lowest point of SSB, could go either way because either a.) the designers could have more flexibility, leading to more creativity, b.)it could suck, just like every other fighting game franchise,(I don't know why people get on Brawl's case of not having an outstanding story).

What everyone forgets is the stigma of having Mario in a title. Because there are some retarded people, and gamers, who think that Mario automatically means kiddy,some of the games lose sales.

Without the Nintendo characters, Super Smash Bros would be a cult hit, just like many other good franchises.

KM91

I was wondering when you were going to flex your muscle on the Chain. I'll give him credit for one thing: his backpedaling was spectacular.

Wading thru the comments, I was shocked at how many of you have no idea who Leigh Alexander is. Obviously her column flies below your radar when it comes to online gaming sites.

And of course it should come as no surprise to anyone that the majority of comments backed up Leigh's assertation of the impact fanboy bias has in the way some people judge things. The irony is tasty here.

coalhalo

Your argument is retarded. In every single player story line game you have to PROGRESS through it to get to the end. That is why it is called a story line. They are linear events that are played out in a certain order.

It sounds to me like you are saying that if you got a DVD of a movie that you have not seen before that you would want to just skip to the end scene.

Your comments are obviously not based on not having played the game, but rather you not having a frickin brain.

Mr.SithNinja

Take Halo 3. Now remove the multi player. Notice how much of the game is locked at the start. You can't play the last level without playing all the other levels first! The story lacks subtlety, and it doesn't even look or play that much better than the last installment!

See? This works for any game.
I'm fully aware that my comments about Halo 3 are the result in not having played enough of the series; but I think Leigh's comments have to do with the same thing.
The most intelligent thing he said though is that it doesn't matter. If you enjoy the game, then who really cares what your reasons are??

KypFox

Also, I have a different concept of what a fanboy is.
I never saw nothing wrong on liking and following some specific characters... like Sonic, Mario, Link and others.

"Fanboy" has a far more negative connotation to me. It's more about people who will aggressively defend stuff without even considering the possibility he/she might be wrong.

Worst of all: Sometimes, fanboys don't even really know the stuff they are defending... they only do so because they own it, or don't want to admit they were wrong at first. Consoles are a prime example.

So, at least on how I understand, there's nothing wrong on being a fan. And yeah, some people might even consider normal, or even shitty games great just because it has the character they like in it.

I can say this is probably my case when it comes to games with anime characters... stuff like Eternal Fighter Zero, Arcana Heart and some others. If it wasn't for the characters, it would only be another boring (and sometimes crippled) 2D fighting game.

Let's not forget though that design character and story also plays a big part on the a game score.
Simple games with great musics, for instance (Guitar Hero).

Bokusatsu_Tenshi

Shaoko

But that's really ALL Galaxy did that's noteworthy. Hell, they didn't even include any actual levels where you got free flight. It's another game, like too many of Nintendo's that you pick up and play and just not get the feeling that they really tried, they just played it safe and came out with a solid product. Last year, you have a game like Portal that comes out that's the kind of forward step in gameplay that makes me weep with happiness on the inside, and every month cinematically inclined games are coming out that you can slap in the face of those who say games can't be art, so why do those excellent, masterpiece games share the same scores with good, solid games? And why do crappy tie-ins and cash-ins get anything below 5? I think this all ties in closely to a problem with reviewers lately, where bad games don't seem to get lower than like...5 out of 10...which is in the middle...which is the definition of mediocre. Mediocre games seem to enjoy 6 and sevens, which should be for better than average games. And then ALL the games ranging from pretty decently good to holy grail of gaming share the same range of 8 to 10, which is a poor representation relative to one another. There's no sense of scale or relativity anymore. You can read two different reviews that give the same number but one's completely negative and the other's mostly positive.

I agree that Shadow of the Colossus, amongst other games, whips the pants off of Twilight Princess, but go look at some reviews, my friend. Twilight Princess was one of the most favorably reviewed games around, garnering infinitely higher numbers than any other games in its genre, and I think it's only now that a lot of people, especially the fanboys I hang around with and some bolder reviewers, are retrospectively looking back on it and seeing that compared to a lot of what we've been getting to play, it can't hold a candle, and maybe some of those few and far between negative reviews were truthful. And I think that, maybe in a couple years, there will be quite a few more games that come under the same scrutiny as time passes and games come out that show us what a 9-10/10 game really SHOULD be. And that's not just playing it safe, or pandering to the crowd with fanservice. It's developing a game that not only delivers a solid experience, but also tries new things, or at the very least, brings together the best that other games in the genre have been offering and puts new polish and tweaks on them.

TheBlackWatch

samdu

xroot

Also, let's make 'smart' into something more like 'gamers on a budget'. If you can afford to, there's not much reason not to have both games, or at least try both. If you can't afford to though, the smarter selection would be the better game. Though, I suppose that's in the eye of the beholder as well, as not everyone will wholly agree.

Ampillion, Dayman. Fighter of the Nightman.

lazyartist

LowNemesis

Lake Somerset

We can probably agree the first Smash Bros. would have gotten a 7 or so with a lack of mascots, features, etc. However, I don't think its sequels would have. They were filled with much more content and were still pretty damn fun.

There's actually another game series that exists with a pretty similar mechanics which leads me to believe that even if they had gone through with the original plan of having original characters, it would have still gotten 8's or 9's all around: Power Stone by Capcom. It was nothing but original characters, less features than the current Smash Bros. incarnation, yet the sequel got an average of 87% according to Game Rankings. Much closer to a 9 average than a 7.

People do kind of compare both games a lot, which leads me to believe that Smash Bros. would have done well, original characters or otherwise. The gameplay is still solid as fuck.

But whatever, this is probably going to be moot as people will probably call me a fanboy and move on.

Drake Lake: Phase Lunaire

So take out the mascots and familiar faces, and you take out the Super Smash Bros. from the Super Smash Bros.

gmunchkin

"There'd be no reason to play any of the modes at all aside from VS."

Usually, people play games for fun.

If you see no reason to play the other modes if it weren't for unlocks, this kind of implies that they're not fun.

If only one game mode out of a bunch is fun, then there's something wrong and it certainly isn't a 10/10 game.

Koztah

Otherwise, yeah. The amount of fanboys in this thread are quite staggering. I was initially angry with all the commenters who seemed to be joining in on the bashing like drones; none of them had an argument that differentiated from the other. The rest of the article is quite good (although unrealistic, which I also touched on) and touches on things that aren't usually explored. Did you like the article?

Lake Somerset

I especially like how she states that we should throw out the ridiculous notion of complete objectivity when it comes to reviews.

And I especially dig this part towards the end:

"Second, let's let go of the idea that a game review is akin to a product evaluation - it is that, but let's accept that they've attained a complexity that completely invalidates the way we once did things, parsing games out by their technical components and then switching, jerkily, into an evaluation of subtext and the subtleties of personal experience."

"If a reviewer's positive experience of a game is influenced by its familiar franchise elements, it's not a disqualification - it's safe to say that most of the fans would experience that same influence. But for the sake of the industry's future, the stamina of the developers (and please, the sanity of the journalists), let's relinquish this idea that there is such a thing as "unbiased" for any single one of us, no matter how hard we try. I propose we embrace our own subjectivity, neutering fanboyism by accepting it -- because it sure ain't going anywhere."

So, for the tl;dr version, no, she isn't "bashing" Brawl and you should probably stop caring so much.

KenzinFive

Sorry, mate. I might make a typo, there's this piss-yellow light in my eyes.

Lake Somerset

KidU

Cafekafe

I've seen comments like yours...horrible players.

You probably got knocked around the level so much you couldn't even muster up a smash attack, much less actually get a chance to play the game. Unfortunately calling the game horrible won't make you suck any less.

For the record I couldn't give a shit what you think about Halo, Smash Bros. is a very well designed fighting game that is also great for parties. If you don't like it, well that's your problem, but to call it horrible cause you suck at it...well that's a strong bout of stupidity if I've ever seen one.

NeoAkira

Reibooi

FancifulUnicorn

peet

It's not without it's charms, but the controls suck, the interface sucks, the limited content at the start....well,..... sucks.

The ironic thing is, IT'S A FANBOY GAME, SO IF YOU ARE NOT A FANBOY, YOU MAY NOT LIKE IT. So, if it's reviewed by a fanboy, it's going to get good results.

GET OVER IT. Reviews are subjective - ignore them if you don't agree.

Ndogg550

"Are you now, or have you ever been a fanboy?"

Lokno

Really what you're asking for is a review precess removed from emotional investment in gaming period, which would mean an end to enthusiast press, which is a tall order.

Lokno

I tried super Smash Brother on the Wii...horrible game.

For the records, Halo is a crappy generic FPS shoter also, never finished one.

JayTapp

ananag

For instance, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption is a decent game, but I fail to see how it's really anything spectacular. It'll probably sound a bit extreme, but I honestly hated the game more and more as I played through it. Why? Because it really doesn't have a lot in common with the 2D Metroid games, aside from the characters. It shoves every possible Metroid reference down your throat, though, playing that stupid-ass music whenever you exit your ship, etc.

Then you've got the idiotic level design that, honestly, would've definitely resulted in lower review scores if the game wasn't part of a well-known franchise. It's as though people are completely blinded by fanboyism at times, and it's sad, because MP3C really isn't that good. The controls are pretty decent, but I've never found myself hating a game so intensely the more I played it.

I realize that Halo and other games are reviewed in a similar manner, though, so I won't claim that only Nintendo fans do this. Nintendo games are usually of high quality, and you don't tend to find them having horrible controls or anything, which is more than can be said of Sega games, for instance. I just really don't feel as though most Nintendo games really deserve the ratings that they get, especially when reviews mention things that, in my eyes, should detract from the overall scores.

kubevubin

Don't get me wrong, I own the game. But you have to see how that sounds. SSBB has it's flaws. Personally I'm not really attached to any of the characters in SSBB, even though I have a few that I tend to favor. Because of that, I don't experience the fan-gasm that seemingly a lot of other players do. So to me, SSBB is a 7.5 out of 10. Certainly not a bad game, but I can see what the author is getting at.

Captain Impulse

The game is fanboyism incarnate, to remove the vast selection of nintendo characters would be to remove the game itself.

markusdragon

I agree with your opinions for the most part, except for this excerpt. While most "smart" gamers would agree, sales figures indicate otherwise. I would be willing to bet real money that Shadow of the Colossus, generally held to be a superior game, sold far fewer copies than Twilight Princess did.

Captain Impulse

Ampillion, Dayman. Fighter of the Nightman.

Nirual

I'll again disagree. For the most part, games that have gotten good scores did so because they were... well, good. Simple as that. Are they all awesome, flawless titles? No, but the scores don't say they are, so it's not really arguable. The only two I can pull off the top of my head that really got a lot of big scores were Galaxy and Brawl, and both of which are pretty deserving of those scores. Comparing some of these games to others on other platforms is merely a choice of taste, if a general consensus says they're pretty good games. The latest Zelda might disappoint when compared to a, say, Shadow of the Colossus... but, is that surprising? An interestingly new title, a good game, being better than an average title from a good franchise? I won't argue that. The Zelda game isn't terrible in any sense of the word, it just doesn't live up to what could've been, and when faced with something good and new, and something familiar and average, which ends up better? Most smart people would pick the former.

Let's move on? From what? A genre? Explain really how you want to move on from a platformer game. There's jumping involved, you do stuff. Maybe collect power-ups, money to upgrade things at some later point, fight some bosses... that's generally how the genre works. You can try blending some genres together, which does work. Mario platformers have always revolved around one thing: Gameplay. Galaxy has tons of that. I haven't played the new R&C, but in all honesty, it didn't change all that much in the PS2 ventures I did play. That's not a bad thing though, it would be like asking them to change those things that define something the most and then expecting me to connect with them just because of the name, and not the actual experience. The way I've seen it, Mario's had the gameplay, while R&C's had much more of a full package. Decent game play, storylines, characters and voice acting, weapons, the works. Both however are great games. The only thing I can really point out is that Galaxy was probably designed more for the newer audiences of the Wii (the weakened difficulty curve and movement controls) whereas the newest R&C was designed for R&C fans, and took greater advantage of the system it's on. So, from more of a veteran gamer standpoint, Galaxy might disappoint just because it wasn't exactly what was pictured. I would bet though that if I dug up a PS3 and R&C, it wouldn't be some radically different title from previous ones, though someone who's really a big follower of the series feel free to correct me. In general though, as above... if consensus is both games are good, it'd be personal opinion which you'd choose if you just had to pick one. Galaxy's weaker difficulty might sway the decision towards R&C.

In general, I just disagree with this assumption that moderate games got great scores. Most of their first party stuff has been at the very least good, with scores to match, and good third party titles got decent reviews, but little mainstream exposure. That might not be your personal opinion, but the numbers in general prove that shitty cash-ins got shitty scores, and the fun games got at the very least, an above average score. How fun that might be for you, all depends on your tastes.

Also, insomnia sucks, and when you spend most your weekend without internet... add that to the inability to sleep, it turns into large comments. Curse these fingers, cuuuurrrse!

Ampillion, Dayman. Fighter of the Nightman.

I think its true though if it was not for the amount of fan service in the game though it'd probably be just another powerstone game. Maybe not a bad thing but I doubt it'd be getting all the 9.5's and 10's it has been.

Cameroo

Haingis

Wth.

Frank

@Witzbold: Love that proffesionalim Witzbold ;D

Garro

TheBlackWatch

Captain Impulse

Then you have games like...Metroid Prime 3. Actually made real, intuitive, intergrated use of the Wii-Mote, broke away from other Nintendo games by including voice actors, a dynamic cast of characters, and a storyline that wasn't completely predictable, and it got the same reviews as some games half the quality, less than some others that did much less for the console. I mean, I had fun with Super Mario Sunshine, but outside of cool level design and pretty good music, what else did it have? Too much waggling controls, insultingly simple boss fights, and a general deja vu feeling with Mario 64. Maybe not a bad thing, but again...10 years ago, let's move on. Sony isn't exactly my favorite group of folks, but look at THEIR platformers; Jak and Daxter and Ratchet and Clank change a LOT between games, dare to be daring, and just about always pull it off to deliver an amazing experience. I honestly think Metroid Prime 3 had the problem of being so good it had to be rated on the same scale as other games NOT on the Wii.

TheBlackWatch

Darkest Daze

hefferj05

Captain Impulse

shouryuuken

Mikintosh

MysticDragon8907

Huh? Are you talking about some bizzaro world? The majority of games on the Wii have gotten fairly modest markings at best, I'm not sure where you're getting this 'free ride' thing from. Outside of Nintendo's efforts, and perhaps a dozen third party titles, everything else has pretty much been pointed at as being utter crud shoveled onto the system to cash in easy bucks. How that constitutes a free ride is beyond me. If you mean from gamers, that's mainly in the eye of the beholder, and again, I don't see any 'free ride'. Hell, reading through these comment sections on Kotaku, it would often seem that Nintendo could make the most awesome game in all the universe, and still be a blight to gaming, somehow. (Though, read through enough sections and you'll find Sony/Microsoft filling in that situational idea too.)

Perhaps Twilight Princess got away with some sticking too close to basic Zeldaness, I think a bunch of that comes from the Windwaker 'hate' that spread across the 'nets like wildfire. Honestly, only morons would really gripe about the score it received. It was okay for a Zelda title, at best. Still never have finished it.

Ampillion, Dayman. Fighter of the Nightman.

LeLoi

is it like some inherent bias that most gamers assume a video game writer is male as opposed to being female, at least when no cues to indicate gender are available?

Anyways, on topic, good points are raised about smash brothers and how its reviewed, and yes, an unestablished franchise running the same engine would probably get lower scores, but the inherent appeal of smash bros is the ability to use the mascots and that bumps it up to the 9 or 10 the game deserves, at least thats how i feel

meltyman

Fanboyism is waaaaaay too prevalent in the gaming community, and it's only a hindrance in the end, because by buying mediocre and crappy games for reasons BESIDES actual gameplay, originality, and the like... you're telling developers not to excel or try hard, just rush out the next "big" title with no polish or originality and you'll eat it up. Meanwhile, fun, original games like...oh, say...No More Heroes sell roughly six copies worldwide. So if you're a big company, what's your incentive to strive to do something new and amazing? And I'm not just picking on the Wii or Nintendo's overrated and unending, unimpressive, and uninspired lineup. Halo 3 had fairly fun multiplayer but an atrocious campaign and relatively unimpressive maps for multiplayer. And dear god...EVERY Final Fantasy game that's ever come out gets rave reviews for having the same old JRPG archetypes in both characters and plot, with every "new" thing they're lauded for doing already done in a myriad of other RPGs that no one acknowledges because they're not Final Fantasy. Both reviewers and the gaming community as a whole need to work hard at being objective when it comes to the things they support, else eventually the ratio of truly awesome games to run-of-the-mill time sinks will eventually become abysmal.

TheBlackWatch

It's innovation. People are going to rate Street Fighter IV incredibly high not just because it's a Street Fighter game, but because it will be an extremely solid 2D fighter.

Lots of people can't find the appeal of fighting games, and that's all right, generally I don't like shooters. (I burned out of them back with Perfect Dark)

Sinfjotle

mossberg

I'll be sad to see thechain212 go. Throughout his feverish postings, I kept thinking to myself "you keep using that word. I'm not sure it means what you think it means." I'll never think of the word "rhetorical" the same way again. What college did he say he goes to?

Night all!

Smadubaku

Maggie Greene

Mr. Mastodon Farm

Graphically, the game isn't a stunner like BioShock or Galaxy, but let's not forget that this is a fighting game at heart. I feel that it's pretty weak to be attacking it on such an apparently hostile level. The game does put out very attractive levels and some really weird (and sometimes frightening) enemies. The Subspace Emissary was repetitive, I can say that. But just last night, I played co-op with a friend, and I can say that it was very enjoyable and interesting to see how they tied each character together in the otherwise forgettable story.

I feel that the comment regarding the lack of Wii controls to a case of the "I just don't fucking know what I wants"; a situation where someone will complain if a tried and true system is fractured and also complain if it isn't, blaming the developers and designers of being cowards. With the people at Nintendo, GameArts and Sora, they gave players the ability to play with their own style of control, and even map moves to each button. I can read this article somewhere in an alternate universe: "...and my next point that makes Smash Bros average, the tacked on Wii controls; do we REALLY need to waggle up to jump? I mean, COME ON (rant and banter)..." The article would continue from there.

Lastly, no fellow writer, this game is not a 10, but it is a very good game, considering its success in previous releases. Nintendo took a risk with getting rid of a bunch of old exploits from old games and adding a more Smash 64 floatiness to Brawl. I felt it was a very enjoyable effort and await (if possible) the next installment.

------

Now, just looking at the length of what is typed above those beautiful set of dashes might eminate a familiar, piss-yellow fanboy light in most people's eyes. Let me explain. I back up my statements above with the feeling that Ms. Alexander's experience with the game feels very lacking and inexperienced. A few comments struck me as the familiar "I just don't know what the fuck I want" symptom, but as for the rest of the article, I agree. However, the article and accompanying argument she presents is that of a perfect world in the video game industry; both with critics and the consumers. We can list things we'd want better in the critical aspect, but it would end up very unrealistic, as we all possess that invisible bias whether we like to admit it or not. What needs to come out of reviews and critical works first and formost is the impression of professionalism and care in the output.

Lake Somerset

Maybe he's talking about points where the character actually trips and falls. That always happens to me at the worse time.

/seriously, what causes that?

Dmartin001

If you think Smash Bros. Brawl is a button masher then you must suck hardcore and not know what you're talking about. It's all good though.

NeoAkira

DJ-KINETIC

Mr. Mastodon Farm

While i completely agree that games are originally for the fun of it, I personally, and i'm sure many more as well, look to reviews to find the strengths and faults of a game so i can base my opinion of those before buying.

The arbitrary number score is something i try to ignore personally, i'd rather have just a write up listing the good and the bad. Lost odyssey for example listed the simplistic/traditional battle system as a negative, i personally quite enjoy it and consider it a positive. Obviously in this case giving it a number wont be an accurate representation.

That being said i do think overly hyped titles tend to gloss over the negative aspects of a game in their reviews.

Fukanzen

BANNED.

Witzbold

thechain212

With reviews, you're essentially getting the paid opinion of a person who likes to play video games. Like it or not, the reviewer's opinion is based on certain biases the reviewer has developed, such as what kind of game the reviewer likes, how familiar the reviewer is with the game in question, if the reviewer enjoyed the game and so on.

That being said, "fanboyism" probably does get thrown into the mix when a reviewer looks at a specific game, especially a franchise game such as a Castlevania, Sonic the Hedgehog or Super Smash Brothers game.

Franchise games inherently have something to live up to as well, like DS Castlevania games are generally measured to the PS1 Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. The DS games are measured against SOTN not only because the games use SOTN's style of game play, but because a lot of people thought SOTN was an incredible game at the time it was first released. There's a built in nostalgia factor because of that and thus, it's compared to it's predecessor. Generally, the reviewer notes that the DS Castlevania is a great game, but fails to live up to the standard the predecessor set.

That being said, reviews are there to let the reader know if a game is worth the time to play or not. However, a lot of reviewers seem to get into a mode where they attempt to find that one perfect game. That little quest then leads some reviewers to compare games in the same genre as opposed to measuring a game on its own merits.

For example, when Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament came out there were a number of reviews that focused on which was better. Quality wise, they're both awesome games, but in IGN's Unreal Tournament review for example, the reviewer states that it isn't a comparison piece, just a review, but later states "the game didn't boast nearly as many player models and skins straight out of the box as I thought it should have. While the ones presented are nice, they're nothing in comparison to the vast number of really cool player options available in Quake III."

Numbered scores fail because there's too much ambiguity involved with the system. For example, one magazine may use a measure where a 5 represents a decent, average game, while another Web site may use the measure of a 7 being a fair, average game, similar to academic scoring. When readers read one review that lists a game as a 9, then sees another review listing the game as a 7, the reader is left to assume the lower review was given because the reviewer's publication didn't receive a payoff or the reviewer struggled to find everything that's bad in the game because they hated the game or whatever. Although it's been mentioned before, a simple "play it" or "leave it" included with an article based on what the reviewer felt worked and didn't work with the game would be a lot better. (Which is why I like Kotaku reviews, with the Loved/Hated portions)

Finally, most reviewers tend to miss that games are made to enjoy and have fun with. Things such as control schemes, graphics and the like add in to the overall experience, both good and bad, but don't always detract from having a fun time. Just because there are few minor flaws in a game doesn't mean the game should be avoided at all costs or, in a score-based review, deserve a lower score. As long as the experience is enjoyable, that's all that should matter.

Dmartin001

nifboy

thechain212

kidnicky

thechain212

thechain212

"But for the sake of the industry's future, the stamina of the developers (and please, the sanity of the journalists), let's relinquish this idea that there is such a thing as "unbiased" for any single one of us, no matter how hard we try. I propose we embrace our own subjectivity, neutering fanboyism by accepting it -- because it sure ain't going anywhere."

So it doesn't matter if she didn't use MGS as an example. She's saying that reviewers are inherently biased so why does everyone keep pretending like ther'e not? That would be the reason for doing away with the scores because most reviewers are rating games based on how much they like them not as an actual product.

Aflack: feels sick to his stomach

thechain212

TheCleaningGuy

Leah didn't say reviewers should rate SSBB based on the hypothetical scenario it didn't include Nintendo characters.Brawl was just being used as an example of a slanted opinion. She was asking how many games (that are not from a well known franchise) released today with a mediocre story mode, weak online and awful loading times ,among other problems, would score a 10/10? Therein lies the bias.

I love Smash,possibly more than a lot of you posting here. I've been playing Melee consistently for the last 7 years, went to the midnight launch for Brawl and have played an unhealthly amount of hours. But it was a problem when reviewers handed out perfect scores for Halo 3 and it's a problem now with Brawl.

What's the point of the review system if a game isn't rated based on it's actual merits? But is instead rated based on what series it descended from?

Aflack: feels sick to his stomach

Ampillion, Dayman. Fighter of the Nightman.

thechain212

If you're a fan of the series recurrent characters can have a positive effect on the game without changing the mechanics at all. While I don't care for any of the above, some people do (as well as reviewers apparently), and I know well enough to run an automatic filter down the 'score' as to take it in with an extra pinch of salt.

muu

Roguestriker

RawSteelUT

thechain212

Back on topic,do any of you guys who cry about the media being Nintendo centric remember 2 years ago when Nintendo was a big joke to the magazines and websites? They were being called out left and right on every little thing. Now all of a sudden,these same people are biased towards them? I find that hard to believe,