StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Just tried it and wow is it over hyped. The camera is typical of all modern Mario titles, which is to say shit, if you've ever played a Ratchet and Clank game you'll wonder who you have to kill to get that camera in a Mario title. The controls are wii-tastic (read: ass) and a second aiming thumb stick would make aiming Yoshi's tongue much easier. The graphics are colored filled, but jaggy as fuck.

I ask, how is this a 10/10 title again?

The same way Blops and Halo Reach are a 10/10?

Because (for the wii) it's a really good game. but a lot of the design decisions would be unforgivable if not
1. Mario (INSTANT 10!1!1oneone....okay, not sunshine.)
2. on the wii.


I feel like a lot of reviewers give games like this a pass because it's "pretty good" in a sea of poo. By comparison, it's amazifying.

The same way Blops and Halo Reach are a 10/10?

I've played a small bit of Reach and no Blops, but they aren't even close to 10/10 games. They still beat the hat and overalls off of Mario though.

Chardok wrote:Because (for the wii) it's a really good game. but a lot of the design decisions would be unforgivable if not
1. Mario (INSTANT 10!1!1oneone....okay, not sunshine.)
2. on the wii.


I feel like a lot of reviewers give games like this a pass because it's "pretty good" in a sea of poo. By comparison, it's amazifying.

Yeah, that's what I'm feeling as well. The wii is so handicapped that it might as well be playing connect the dots with crayons while the 360 and PS3 are taking post secondary courses. A red blob that might sort of look like an Italian gets the wii praise, but a bit more is expected from anybody else.

Norade wrote:

The same way Blops and Halo Reach are a 10/10?

I've played a small bit of Reach and no Blops, but they aren't even close to 10/10 games. They still beat the hat and overalls off of Mario though.

I'm not saying that they're good per se (I thought Reach was downright boring). Just that the gaming industry likes to deep throat any game with massive budgets and lots of hype behind them, especially for sequels to games that turned out to be hits. Ratings systems aren't very meaningful anyway when a lot of reviews can be self contradictory. Reviewers will give a game 10/10, then spout off a list of flaws and . . . still give it 10/10.

General Zod wrote:

Norade wrote:

The same way Blops and Halo Reach are a 10/10?

I've played a small bit of Reach and no Blops, but they aren't even close to 10/10 games. They still beat the hat and overalls off of Mario though.

I'm not saying that they're good per se (I thought Reach was downright boring). Just that the gaming industry likes to deep throat any game with massive budgets and lots of hype behind them, especially for sequels to games that turned out to be hits. Ratings systems aren't very meaningful anyway when a lot of reviews can be self contradictory. Reviewers will give a game 10/10, then spout off a list of flaws and . . . still give it 10/10.

Yeah, but Wii fans will felate SMB: Galaxy until they gag without noticing that other, better, platformers exist for other consoles. Halo fanboys will at least attack a specific point to show why Reach is better than Blops, and the same works in reverse.

General Zod wrote:

Norade wrote:

The same way Blops and Halo Reach are a 10/10?

I've played a small bit of Reach and no Blops, but they aren't even close to 10/10 games. They still beat the hat and overalls off of Mario though.

I'm not saying that they're good per se (I thought Reach was downright boring). Just that the gaming industry likes to deep throat any game with massive budgets and lots of hype behind them, especially for sequels to games that turned out to be hits. Ratings systems aren't very meaningful anyway when a lot of reviews can be self contradictory. Reviewers will give a game 10/10, then spout off a list of flaws and . . . still give it 10/10.

There are always going to be some biases, but I wouldn't say hype = 10/10, it just equals more attention, whether the title is good or bad, where at times better games may slip under the radar, Force Unleashed 1 & 2 would be prime examples.

As for the contradictory statement, its honestly not a contradiction, it just has to do with your overall experience. The camera in Super Mario Galaxy may get in my way every now and then, but it doesn't kill immersion, cause me to die, or get me killed by something off screen. So one could criticize the camera, but then again, they could say in another game, it does cause them to die, get them killed by something off screen, or cause them to die. That game would also criticize the camera. And yet the scores are completely different. Its like critics saying Avatar was simplistic in a plot, but great on action and still got great reviews vs. Tron Legacy which is apparently simplistic on plot, but great on the action, and the reviews are pretty mixed. Its not a contradiction, it just depends the severity of the flaw that's mentioned.

That being said for SMG, the camera is a little finicky, its annoyingly linear (when compared to say Mario 64), and the level designs aren't as diverse as I'd like, but none of these issues ruin the game for me, it just leaves me wanting a bit more.

The camera is a minor inconvenience, the Yoshi controls are sometimes subpar, but those are two minor blemishes on a broadly fantastic game. The art style is gorgeous, the levels are still creative and loads of fun, and there's as much challenge as you care to extract from the game. It's rehashing some parts of MG1, but that's forgivable given that it has the same general setting and the first game was fantastic to begin with.

If you think it's not deserving of the aggregate review scores it got, fine, but we really don't need another thread dedicated to anti-Wii circle jerking.

Ratings systems aren't very meaningful anyway when a lot of reviews can be self contradictory. Reviewers will give a game 10/10, then spout off a list of flaws and . . . still give it 10/10.

Some review scales have 10/10 meaning "perfect", but many don't. A perfect score usually means that the game is nearly overwhelmingly good, such that the things wrong with it are insignificant when looking at it holistically, or that despite several glaring problems it pushes the envelope of the genre such that it deserves special recognition. This is usually the case with the 5 star scales, where it's normal to give 5 stars to "fantastic" games that aren't even close to perfect (as is the tradition in film review culture). 100 point scales generally never give out 10's, the 1-10 scale sometimes does but not as often as the 5 star scale.

A lot of sites probably give major franchise games scores in the 9.5-10/10 range simply to keep the fanboys from getting on their backs. I mean, if you look at the way some people went apeshit about the likes of Metroid: Other M and Final Fantasy XIII generally getting scores which were "only" in the 8/10 ballpark, you can almost sympathise with the way reviewers slap near-perfect scores on these games. Not that it in any way justifies doing so, but let's face it, butthurt fanboys tend to scream a whole lot louder than people who grumble about review sites giving scores that are too high.

DaveJB wrote:A lot of sites probably give major franchise games scores in the 9.5-10/10 range simply to keep the fanboys from getting on their backs. I mean, if you look at the way some people went apeshit about the likes of Metroid: Other M and Final Fantasy XIII generally getting scores which were "only" in the 8/10 ballpark, you can almost sympathise with the way reviewers slap near-perfect scores on these games. Not that it in any way justifies doing so, but let's face it, butthurt fanboys tend to scream a whole lot louder than people who grumble about review sites giving scores that are too high.

Half of that is true. Fanboys do get shit to reviewers when their game doesn't get a high enough score. I mean fuck, I've seen people go apeshit about Donkey Kong getting a 4/5 on a site. And then there was that site that absolutely trashed Other M, that wasn't pretty, fan response was just fucked up. I mean fanboys are gonna bitch regardless, so who is actually going to cater to them.

I mean sure, the Halos and Call of Duties are given some slack, but my point being most of that time, its just that, that reviewer honestly felt that the game was really good, not perfect, we'll never play a flawless game, but thought there was something so good about it, you would consider to be the best of the year. And due to at least critical acclaim, you'd probably get a sequel despite not selling too well. Examples: No More Heroes, Dead Space, and Infamous.

Whiplash wrote: There are always going to be some biases, but I wouldn't say hype = 10/10, it just equals more attention, whether the title is good or bad, where at times better games may slip under the radar, Force Unleashed 1 & 2 would be prime examples.

As for the contradictory statement, its honestly not a contradiction, it just has to do with your overall experience. The camera in Super Mario Galaxy may get in my way every now and then, but it doesn't kill immersion, cause me to die, or get me killed by something off screen. So one could criticize the camera, but then again, they could say in another game, it does cause them to die, get them killed by something off screen, or cause them to die. That game would also criticize the camera. And yet the scores are completely different. Its like critics saying Avatar was simplistic in a plot, but great on action and still got great reviews vs. Tron Legacy which is apparently simplistic on plot, but great on the action, and the reviews are pretty mixed. Its not a contradiction, it just depends the severity of the flaw that's mentioned.

If you're going to be listing off a whole bunch of flaws with a game then it doesn't deserve a perfect score.

General Zod wrote:

Whiplash wrote: There are always going to be some biases, but I wouldn't say hype = 10/10, it just equals more attention, whether the title is good or bad, where at times better games may slip under the radar, Force Unleashed 1 & 2 would be prime examples.

As for the contradictory statement, its honestly not a contradiction, it just has to do with your overall experience. The camera in Super Mario Galaxy may get in my way every now and then, but it doesn't kill immersion, cause me to die, or get me killed by something off screen. So one could criticize the camera, but then again, they could say in another game, it does cause them to die, get them killed by something off screen, or cause them to die. That game would also criticize the camera. And yet the scores are completely different. Its like critics saying Avatar was simplistic in a plot, but great on action and still got great reviews vs. Tron Legacy which is apparently simplistic on plot, but great on the action, and the reviews are pretty mixed. Its not a contradiction, it just depends the severity of the flaw that's mentioned.

If you're going to be listing off a whole bunch of flaws with a game then it doesn't deserve a perfect score.

5/5 doesn't equal perfect game. It just means that the overall experience overshadows those any flaws, in that case minor flaws. The flaws I listed bother me, but I don't play the game thinking, damn I wish the camera was better, the levels aren't diverse enough or whatever. Especially on a 5 star scale, of course non perfect games are gonna get perfect scores. On a 10 scale, its less likely. On a 100 scale, probably never.

Whiplash wrote:[
5/5 doesn't equal perfect game. It just means that the overall experience overshadows those any flaws, in that case minor flaws. The flaws I listed bother me, but I don't play the game thinking, damn I wish the camera was better, the levels aren't diverse enough or whatever. Especially on a 5 star scale, of course non perfect games are gonna get perfect scores. On a 10 scale, its less likely. On a 100 scale, probably never.

Then the rating is meaningless, as I said before. What might be a minor flaw to someone else could be a deal breaker to me. I've ran into countless games that could have been fun if something trivial as, say, the camera system didn't suck so much ass.

perfect score =/= perfect game

Chardok wrote:perfect score =/= perfect game

I believe I've already said that's why a perfect score is meaningless?

Chardok wrote:perfect score =/= perfect game

Okay, think of it this way, on a grading scale 5/5 doesn't equal a 10/10 which doesn't equal 100/100. A site that never gives a game a 5/5 is "too tough on games". No one really asks for a 10/10, but it happens every now and then, Mario Galaxy and Uncharted 2. And has any game ever gotten a 100/100? Do you see the difference?

Besides, there is no such thing as a perfect score.

Does anyone actually use 100/100 scoring systems?

Besides, there is no such thing as a perfect score.

Then . . .why use a score at all?

A cool podcast I listen to put it this way: a 10/10 does not mean a perfect game, it means it's a game that, no matter what genre you are a fan of, you will enjoy. Bascially an experience you should not miss. I agree with that assessment. a good example of a game like that would be something like Mass Effect 2 or, say not SMG 2

General Zod wrote:Does anyone actually use 100/100 scoring systems?

Besides, there is no such thing as a perfect score.

Then . . .why use a score at all?

Because people are too lazy to read a full review, nonetheless several. They just want a score and bullet points to either say, 'cool, they liked the game' or 'fuck them, they're biased idiots'. Hell, I don't even think review sites like giving scores. Hell, if I give a review, the score is at the very end of the review.

Whiplash wrote: Because people are too lazy to read a full review, none the less several. They just want a score and bullet points to either say, 'cool, they liked the game' or 'fuck them, they're biased idiots'.

I'm not really sure what you're arguing against then, considering I've repeatedly explained that I think scores are worthless for precisely that reason.

Chardok wrote:A cool podcast I listen to put it this way: a 10/10 does not mean a perfect game, it means it's a game that, no matter what genre you are a fan of, you will enjoy. Bascially an experience you should not miss. I agree with that assessment. a good example of a game like that would be something like Mass Effect 2 or, say not SMG 2

Unless there's game-breaking bugs in the review that the developer mentions but doesn't personally think are game breaking even though I would, or they were simply paid off to give a perfect score.

I...don't...understand your...post?

Chardok wrote:I...don't...understand your...post?

I'm saying that a 10/10 doesn't mean I'm going to enjoy the game. By that logic I should enjoy blops or reach or GTA 4.

Whiplash wrote:There are always going to be some biases, but I wouldn't say hype = 10/10, it just equals more attention, whether the title is good or bad, where at times better games may slip under the radar, Force Unleashed 1 & 2 would be prime examples.

As for the contradictory statement, its honestly not a contradiction, it just has to do with your overall experience. The camera in Super Mario Galaxy may get in my way every now and then, but it doesn't kill immersion, cause me to die, or get me killed by something off screen. So one could criticize the camera, but then again, they could say in another game, it does cause them to die, get them killed by something off screen, or cause them to die. That game would also criticize the camera. And yet the scores are completely different. Its like critics saying Avatar was simplistic in a plot, but great on action and still got great reviews vs. Tron Legacy which is apparently simplistic on plot, but great on the action, and the reviews are pretty mixed. Its not a contradiction, it just depends the severity of the flaw that's mentioned.

That being said for SMG, the camera is a little finicky, its annoyingly linear (when compared to say Mario 64), and the level designs aren't as diverse as I'd like, but none of these issues ruin the game for me, it just leaves me wanting a bit more.

I expect a decent camera in my games these days and compared to platformers on the PS2 and PS3 both Galaxy games have me half blind and trying to manually focus the camera while unable to jump because of where the d-pad was placed on the Wiimote. Picture this exact same camera in Call of Duty, Halo, Ratchet and Clank and see if people would be willing to brush off how ass it is as a minor flaw.

The same goes for the controls, I'd much rather play Mario 64 instead of Mario Galaxy simply because the controls are so much better. The Wiimote just hampers games with hamfisted controls that leave people who know how to use dual sticks wondering why there is no option for a better controller to be used. It isn't as if not shaking the controller or having to point at the screen is a major part of the game play experience.

As for it deserving a 10/10, it doesn't. I like platformers, but at this stage I'll take another slightly tired Ratchet and lank game for the level of polish and tight controls over anything with a jaggy plumber.

zod said stuff

yeah, but you're old and bitter, soooooo

but seriously, the fucking scores ARE meaningless

if the game is the first or standalone in a series, then yeah maybe its worth it

if its a sequel, then 10/10 is only a "must play" if you are already a fanboy of the series

10/10 is more indicative of the level of polish and graphics than anything else