So.........Paper Mario TTYD earns a 6.75 from GameInformer?

[coolz481]

I don't have a subscription to the magazine or frequent GameStop, so I was wondering if anyone has read this review. I found the score on gamerankings, but since it's a print publication, there's no link to the text of the review. The other sites listed give Paper Mario marks in the 9-10 range, so I don't know if Gi has tired of 2D gaming in general or found particular faults with this title. Any info or thoughts are appreciated.

PS I'm picking up my copy tomorrow regardless!

[guessed]

Check out the screenshots that gamerankings has linked...bizarre.

[hiccupleftovers]

This is sad if it is true. IF so that I'm cancelling my subscription and will never read it again. I haven't gotten it in yet though.

[Weedy649]

Dont even bother, some magazines(Like Gi) arent worth reading because of the stupid scores they give like that. How can a game that gets game of the month for other magazines not even score a 7 from another? Biased views if you ask me. EGM gives 3 reviews and GMR gives a least a second opinion..they scored great from all but there is always some people who wont like a game just because.
Just goes to show never read from one source or you will either miss out on a great game or wish you did miss out on a bad one.

[hiccupleftovers]

I got my GMR (which I tend not to like so much) and it gave it I believe a 9 or so out of 10.

[rocksolidaudio]

don't read reviews if you expect them to always agree with your tastes. video games, just like movies, are incredibly subjective; you can usually expect a reviewer in a largely-distributed magazine to have an educated opinion, but it's still an opinion. would you rather hear bias bullshit satisfying your own tastes? i should hope not.

[beerguy961]

Dont even bother, some magazines(Like Gi) arent worth reading because of the stupid scores they give like that. How can a game that gets game of the month for other magazines not even score a 7 from another? Biased views if you ask me. EGM gives 3 reviews and GMR gives a least a second opinion..they scored great from all but there is always some people who wont like a game just because.
Just goes to show never read from one source or you will either miss out on a great game or wish you did miss out on a bad one.

I think some places give out bad scores on an occaisional game (IGN/Gamespot gave MKDD below an 8.0, but I still check out their reviews). I can't really knock them for giving out one bad score on a game that everybody else seems to like. Plus, GI seems to have something out for the Paper Mario series (did the original in the Retro Scores section and gave it a low score despite the fact that everybody else loved it)

[hiccupleftovers]

don't read reviews if you expect them to always agree with your tastes. video games, just like movies, are incredibly subjective; you can usually expect a reviewer in a largely-distributed magazine to have an educated opinion, but it's still an opinion. would you rather hear bias bullshit satisfying your own tastes? i should hope not.

NO but the fact is that Most people know that Papre Mario is an aswesome game. I find it doubtful when every other news source claims that it is awesome and one says that it is not. I find it even more unbelieveable when a magazine gives a crappy game a high score and wil stop reading that game for I have lost my trust in that publications opinions on games.

[minx]

you need to read this

"Taken from the GI forums:


"GI-Jeremy wrote:

Lisa and I both knew that our Paper Mario scores were going to cause controversy. Yes, we know that many people out there will love it. We also know that it is a well-made game. However, it also WILL NOT appeal to many people - I would safely say that more people will dislike it than like it. Why? Like we said in the review, it's a very kiddie game - it's target audience is clearly young gamers - I would say 10 and under. For that reason, we had to score it low. Remember, we aren't scoring games strictly on our personal opinions, we're also scoring them based on how much we think THE GAMING PUBLIC will like them. We've all played games that we personally disliked and scored them well because we've known that most people will like them, and we've also scored games low that we love, because most people won't enjoy them.

FOr example, I really like the bizarre frog golf game Ribbit King, and I gave it a 7, because it's just not for everyone. Paper Mario 2 also scored low because it's just not for everyone. If you think it's a 10 in your book, it's a ten in your book, and that doesn't change if we disagree. We're here to guide you on what games to pick up, but ultimately your personal opinion is what will make you buy a game or not.

I hope this helps."



his retraction.....a form letter e-mail sent to people who complained

"Yeah, GI actually replied back to my letter, here goes.

John,

Thanks for writing. There has been a lot said about the post I made in
our forums, most of which, like your letter, is completely fair and
valid. In a fit of irritation, I posted said message without really
thinking about it, and have lived to regret it. Everyone here scores
games based on their personal opinions, not based on what we think the
public wants to hear. If we scored based on what people wanted to hear,
Paper Mario 2 would have gotten a much higher score, like a 9 or a 10.
But that's not how we do things. What I meant in my message on our
forums is that I thought the majority of gamers would feel like I did
about Paper Mario 2 – disappointment once they got their hands on it. I
didn't mean to imply that I thought about how the public would perceive
a title when scoring it, I just meant that I thought those who agreed
with my score would outnumber those vocal opponents of my score.

I'm sorry to hear that this incident has caused you to distrust the
magazine in any way. You shouldn't. Everyone here is honest and up
front about their opinions, and scores games accordingly. You can feel
free to distrust me if you want (although I think I am being quite
honest with you in admitting that I publicly screwed up), but don't let
it spoil your opinion of everyone else here, the work they do, or the
publication that we put out.

Thank you,

Jeremy Zoss
Associate Editor
Game Informer Magazine
"

http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=2000105&topic=16807859

[hiccupleftovers]

^^^That proves it...they are a bunch of idiots. They rate it on what the public wants to hear..bleh, they are supposed to rate it on how they liked it, so that we can get a fair determination of how it is. Basically what he said is that he adjusts scores on what everyone else thinks. the public knows how the Mario games are and what does it matter if they are little kiddie.

[Reality's Fringe]

Wuh oh, looks like one of the douchebags just blew a major magazine secret and is now trying to cover it back up. I used to think that GI was a little better than most, but now that I know that..... Stick to reviewing games yourselves guys, it's the only way. I'll still be picking up Paper MArio.

[hiccupleftovers]

I too used to think that GI was better than many magazines, but after reading this I'm not so sure. All of there scores seem now to be fixed and unjust. If a game deserves a ten, give it a ten don't lower it because you don't know what others wil think of you. If a game is deserving of a 5 don't give it a ten and call it the greatest game in history.

[x0thedeadzone0x]

Wholy shit. As if the first game wasn't kiddie? The fucking graphics are made of PAPER. This should not affect the score. If they ENJOYED playing it, they should put that in their review some how, some way. Not "well, the graphics were looking a little papery and kiddie, and I didn't see any headshots, so it won't appeal to most gamers. I rate it teh 6!!!!11!!1111 one". Christ, I'm gonna be pissed when my mag comes in the mail.

Oh yeah, and the first was a fucking AWESOME game. One of my favorites of all time. Nothing will change that... unless this one is better in every way.

[oxidative]

wait, you mean the review scores are NOT entirely honest!!!!??? Looks like Nintendo forgot to renew their advertising bill....

[Weedy649]

^^^That proves it...they are a bunch of idiots. They rate it on what the public wants to hear..bleh, they are supposed to rate it on how they liked it, so that we can get a fair determination of how it is. Basically what he said is that he adjusts scores on what everyone else thinks. the public knows how the Mario games are and what does it matter if they are little kiddie.

Yep you got it right, so many people say mario games are kiddie and what not but many gamers can get over that fact. The gameplay itself can make a game better then a story can. For example, I loved ToS but some people didnt thinking it was kiddie...i loved the battle system and would rather play an rpg with fun battle and kiddie story then best story but you couldnt stand playing it due to flaws like annoying random battles.

Another example is how a show invader zim, ren and stimpy rocko and what not could be on nick which is a station for kids...yet its better then the the real life shows for "older adults". Thats just IMO but really why didnt GI have more opinions on it so that its like 1 person didnt like it but others did?

[Kaijufan]

GI thought Enter the Matrix was better then Paper Mario 2. :lol:

[Sheik Rattle Enroll]

Are you people for real? What would you prefer, the knee-jerk reaction of days past when everyone gave anything made by Nintendo a high score just to avoid ticking off the fanboys? And what do you care what GI scores the game? You've all obviously made up your minds to buy it already, so you're not the intended audience for the review. The review is designed to help the average gamer decide whether to get it or not. It's not aimed at the fanboys/fangirls who are going to get it regardless of what anyone says.

[KrazyKefka]

GI thought Enter the Matrix was better then Paper Mario 2. :lol:

Ouch.

[x0thedeadzone0x]

GI thought Enter the Matrix was better then Paper Mario 2. :lol:

Wholy shit, that's just sad. They now officially have lost all credibility with me and their reviewing system.

[Alpha2]

It's nice to know for certain not that Game informer's reviews dont mean DICK anymore.

It's the little confirmations that make life good.

[jmcc]

Are you people for real? What would you prefer, the knee-jerk reaction of days past when everyone gave anything made by Nintendo a high score just to avoid ticking off the fanboys? And what do you care what GI scores the game? You've all obviously made up your minds to buy it already, so you're not the intended audience for the review. The review is designed to help the average gamer decide whether to get it or not. It's not aimed at the fanboys/fangirls who are going to get it regardless of what anyone says.

Who knows what other reviews they did that they just scored based on what they thought the public wanted to hear, though? They're free to their opinion that it's a 6.75/10 game, but the way they reach their scores now seems to be suspect.

[hiccupleftovers]

Are you people for real? What would you prefer, the knee-jerk reaction of days past when everyone gave anything made by Nintendo a high score just to avoid ticking off the fanboys? And what do you care what GI scores the game? You've all obviously made up your minds to buy it already, so you're not the intended audience for the review. The review is designed to help the average gamer decide whether to get it or not. It's not aimed at the fanboys/fangirls who are going to get it regardless of what anyone says.

True, but I'm no fanboy, just I tend to like Nintendo's hard work that they put in their games. The problem is that he lied to the masses therefore this article is worth shit except it changes the public's opinion of the game. I rather have mostly truth as in IGN, etc. than a lie straight to my face on how a game truly is. If this is supposed to help the public decide than what good is it? This truly is a crappy magazine, think about it they will lead the buyer to crap like Enter the Matrix that don't deserve their scores, but to game that is worthy they lower it. Hmmm...sounds suspicous. Also Nintendo many times deserves their score because they actually put some work into what they create so that it is a fun game. The average gamer should be led to gems of games, not crap.

[Sheik Rattle Enroll]

Who knows what other reviews they did that they just scored based on what they thought the public wanted to hear, though? They're free to their opinion that it's a 6.75/10 game, but the way they reach their scores now seems to be suspect.

So they shouldn't base it on how much enojoyment they think the average gamer will get out of it?

[hiccupleftovers]

Who knows what other reviews they did that they just scored based on what they thought the public wanted to hear, though? They're free to their opinion that it's a 6.75/10 game, but the way they reach their scores now seems to be suspect.

So they shouldn't base it on how much enojoyment they think the average gamer will get out of it?

No, they should base it on how good they thought it was, not on what others say.

[Sheik Rattle Enroll]

True, but I'm no fanboy, just I tend to like Nintendo's hard work that they put in their games. The problem is that he lied to the masses therefore this article is worth shit except it changes the public's opinion of the game. I rather have mostly truth as in IGN, etc. than a lie straight to my face on how a game truly is. If this is supposed to help the public decide than what good is it? This truly is a crappy magazine, think about it they will lead the buyer to crap like Enter the Matrix that don't deserve their scores, but to game that is worthy they lower it. Hmmm...sounds suspicous. Also Nintendo many times deserves their score because they actually put some work into what they create so that it is a fun game. The average gamer should be led to gems of games, not crap.

Nintendo's "hard work" these days is giving another developer a stack of cash and telling them to do their work for them.

[aneventualend]

And you guys know it's a wonderful game how? Based on the n64 game of the same name? Spch, wait 'til you get your hands on it, and THEN start canceling your subscriptions (if it is that good, I mean)

[Sheik Rattle Enroll]

No, they should base it on how good they thought it was, not on what others say.

If they were doing that, they'd just look at other reviews and give it a higher score. They scored it based on how much they thought their readership would enjoy it. Their readership tending not to be 10 year old kids. Would you rather every magazine gave games the same score? What's the sense of having different magazines then?

[tickdude]

Go find a reviewer that you trust, and read their reviews. Some reviewers are all about the graphics. Others are biased towards multiplayer. And others, believe it or not, like gameplay!

Finally, use gamerankings.com to get a more general feel for a particular game, reading the good, the average, and the bad reviews.

[hiccupleftovers]

True, but I'm no fanboy, just I tend to like Nintendo's hard work that they put in their games. The problem is that he lied to the masses therefore this article is worth shit except it changes the public's opinion of the game. I rather have mostly truth as in IGN, etc. than a lie straight to my face on how a game truly is. If this is supposed to help the public decide than what good is it? This truly is a crappy magazine, think about it they will lead the buyer to crap like Enter the Matrix that don't deserve their scores, but to game that is worthy they lower it. Hmmm...sounds suspicous. Also Nintendo many times deserves their score because they actually put some work into what they create so that it is a fun game. The average gamer should be led to gems of games, not crap.

Nintendo's "hard work" these days is giving another developer a stack of cash and telling them to do their work for them.

They stil make plenty of in-house games. Besides, what does it matter as long as it is still up to par with their requirements and that it is a good game. Look at Metroid Prime, that is an unbelievable 3d transformation of a classic 2d adventure game. The only cripe you may have with it is its controll scheme but even that seems minor.

[Duo_Maxwell]

It's called a difference of opinion people. This is one person's opinion...it doesn't mean the whole magazine has gone loco, in fact there's probably a good number of people on thier staff that would given the game a better score I'm sure. I've seen plenty of people on here baxh a game I thought was quite good, like Halo for instance, but I take as a difference of opinion. I saw something I enjoyed about the game that they probably didn't and it's a simple as that. People always seem to overreact to unfavorable reviews for some reason. Perhaps if it was awarded some outrageously low score like a 2.25 os something I could see what everyone's gripe is, but from the sound of things you people are certainly overreacting.

[jmcc]

Who knows what other reviews they did that they just scored based on what they thought the public wanted to hear, though? They're free to their opinion that it's a 6.75/10 game, but the way they reach their scores now seems to be suspect.

So they shouldn't base it on how much enojoyment they think the average gamer will get out of it?

Of course not. They can't possibly gauge that. They have to limit the review to how they feel about it.

[Duo_Maxwell]

True, but I'm no fanboy, just I tend to like Nintendo's hard work that they put in their games. The problem is that he lied to the masses therefore this article is worth shit except it changes the public's opinion of the game. I rather have mostly truth as in IGN, etc. than a lie straight to my face on how a game truly is. If this is supposed to help the public decide than what good is it? This truly is a crappy magazine, think about it they will lead the buyer to crap like Enter the Matrix that don't deserve their scores, but to game that is worthy they lower it. Hmmm...sounds suspicous. Also Nintendo many times deserves their score because they actually put some work into what they create so that it is a fun game. The average gamer should be led to gems of games, not crap.

Nintendo's "hard work" these days is giving another developer a stack of cash and telling them to do their work for them.

They stil make plenty of in-house games. Besides, what does it matter as long as it is still up to par with their requirements and that it is a good game. Look at Metroid Prime, that is an unbelievable 3d transformation of a classic 3d adventure game. The only cripe you may have with it is its controll scheme but even that seems minor.

You mean 2D adventure game...I hope

[jmcc]

It's called a difference of opinion people. This is one person's opinion...it doesn't mean the whole magazine has gone loco, in fact there's probably a good number of people on thier staff that would given the game a better score I'm sure.

Remember, we aren't scoring games strictly on our personal opinions, we're also scoring them based on how much we think THE GAMING PUBLIC will like them. We've all played games that we personally disliked and scored them well because we've known that most people will like them, and we've also scored games low that we love, because most people won't enjoy them.

That sounds to me like it's magazine policy. Maybe he's just talking about himself and the woman he collaborated with, but I'm more inclined to go with the collective than just the two.

[hiccupleftovers]

No, they should base it on how good they thought it was, not on what others say.

If they were doing that, they'd just look at other reviews and give it a higher score.

I'm a little confused by what you mean hear? Makes no sense with your argument.

They scored it based on how much they thought their readership would enjoy it. Their readership tending not to be 10 year old kids. Would you rather every magazine gave games the same score? What's the sense of having different magazines then?[/

No one can decide how much their readership will enjoy it, but they should rate it on how well made they thought it was, i.e. graphics gameplay, the whole package. I can make up a score for how much others will like it, but that still doesn't make it a valid scores. Look at other magazines that have been longer than most video game mags, OCnsumer Reports, car mags, etc. They rate on how good they thought the porduct was not on what others or their readership think it should be.

[hiccupleftovers]

True, but I'm no fanboy, just I tend to like Nintendo's hard work that they put in their games. The problem is that he lied to the masses therefore this article is worth shit except it changes the public's opinion of the game. I rather have mostly truth as in IGN, etc. than a lie straight to my face on how a game truly is. If this is supposed to help the public decide than what good is it? This truly is a crappy magazine, think about it they will lead the buyer to crap like Enter the Matrix that don't deserve their scores, but to game that is worthy they lower it. Hmmm...sounds suspicous. Also Nintendo many times deserves their score because they actually put some work into what they create so that it is a fun game. The average gamer should be led to gems of games, not crap.

Nintendo's "hard work" these days is giving another developer a stack of cash and telling them to do their work for them.

They stil make plenty of in-house games. Besides, what does it matter as long as it is still up to par with their requirements and that it is a good game. Look at Metroid Prime, that is an unbelievable 3d transformation of a classic 3d adventure game. The only cripe you may have with it is its controll scheme but even that seems minor.

You mean 2D adventure game...I hope

Yaeh, good catch.

[Alpha2]

What THEY think is the average gamer and what actually IS can be two different things. This reviewer is putting emphasis on elements OTHER than the game itself to base his score on.

If I thought the consumer base for the Xbox were woman Halo would get a 5 based on this guys formula. And who knows if this is a company wide policy or if it's just this reviewer? It's going to cast suspcion on their future reviews regardless.

[Duo_Maxwell]

It's called a difference of opinion people. This is one person's opinion...it doesn't mean the whole magazine has gone loco, in fact there's probably a good number of people on thier staff that would given the game a better score I'm sure.

Remember, we aren't scoring games strictly on our personal opinions, we're also scoring them based on how much we think THE GAMING PUBLIC will like them. We've all played games that we personally disliked and scored them well because we've known that most people will like them, and we've also scored games low that we love, because most people won't enjoy them.

That sounds to me like it's magazine policy. Maybe he's just talking about himself and the woman he collaborated with, but I'm more inclined to go with the collective than just the two.


Then isn't it just his opinion of how he thinks the gaming public or moreover his readership will like it? No matter how you dice isn't a review still just an opinion?

[vherub]

i remember a similar "outcry" when star fox adventures was released. People were all crazy upset/took it as a personal attack/vowed that magazine x was collectively out of their gourds. so quickly we all forget that reviews do not have the power to change how much YOU enjoy the game unless YOU let them. They may deter others from buying the game, possibly thereby lessening chances for a sequel or financially hurting the studio, but thats it.

and that aside star fox adventures WAS garbage and deserved low scores across the board which became clear once everyone else got to play the game.

reviews always have to be taken lightly: paper mario might be awesome, and all reviews i have seen agree if you liked the previous entries, you will like the latest, but it might end up being garbage, too.

Id like to point out that mario kart 64 was not that highly reviewed when it came out, nothing too great, not even as good as the snes version, and yet to me it remains one of, if not the, greatest multiplayer games on any system still to this day. to each his own.

[Weedy649]

It's called a difference of opinion people. This is one person's opinion...it doesn't mean the whole magazine has gone loco, in fact there's probably a good number of people on thier staff that would given the game a better score I'm sure. I've seen plenty of people on here baxh a game I thought was quite good, like Halo for instance, but I take as a difference of opinion. I saw something I enjoyed about the game that they probably didn't and it's a simple as that. People always seem to overreact to unfavorable reviews for some reason. Perhaps if it was awarded some outrageously low score like a 2.25 os something I could see what everyone's gripe is, but from the sound of things you people are certainly overreacting.

Ok so if Halo 2 got a 6 outta 10 from 1 mag would people make a fuss over it? Damn right they would. I myself who doesnt care since i dont have an xbox would be mad. A bad score is discouraging the "average gamer" not to play this game that means lower sales...lower sales means less money to make the next sequel even better. In a way it does effect me and im one of those who bought Enter the Matrix...the fact that any game that has gotten GotM in any mag scored less then that makes me mad.
This is 1 person's opinion but like i said before magazines like EGM have 3 scores so you can get different views for your money. So 1 bad score does mean alot when you consider some gamestop customers read only this magazine.

[msdmoney]

Who knows what other reviews they did that they just scored based on what they thought the public wanted to hear, though? They're free to their opinion that it's a 6.75/10 game, but the way they reach their scores now seems to be suspect.

So they shouldn't base it on how much enojoyment they think the average gamer will get out of it?

Of course not. They can't possibly gauge that. They have to limit the review to how they feel about it.

Exactly, this is the big problem, we don't need them telling us what we will like, we just need them to give the game an honest review. They can state the game is too kiddie for the average gamer in their review, but it shouldn't affect the final score. Does it state that the games score is low, due to the game being too kiddie, in their review?

Think of it this way, should great movies like Toy Story 1 & 2 get lower scores because they are too kiddie for the average movie goer?

[jmcc]

It's called a difference of opinion people. This is one person's opinion...it doesn't mean the whole magazine has gone loco, in fact there's probably a good number of people on thier staff that would given the game a better score I'm sure.

Remember, we aren't scoring games strictly on our personal opinions, we're also scoring them based on how much we think THE GAMING PUBLIC will like them. We've all played games that we personally disliked and scored them well because we've known that most people will like them, and we've also scored games low that we love, because most people won't enjoy them.

That sounds to me like it's magazine policy. Maybe he's just talking about himself and the woman he collaborated with, but I'm more inclined to go with the collective than just the two.


Then isn't it just his opinion of how he thinks the gaming public or moreover his readership will like it? No matter how you dice isn't a review still just an opinion?

It kind of is and it isn't. People are paying to hear what this guy's take on the game is, so it's an opinion AND a service. They assume that he's giving an honest score of the game, so when he rates it on something other than how he actually feels about the game he's not really holding up his end of the deal with the reader.

[hiccupleftovers]

They may deter others from buying the game, possibly thereby lessening chances for a sequel or financially hurting the studio, but thats it.




Sometimes a bad review can be life or death for a company, so if that company poured its heart and soul inoto makiing a game doesn't it deserve a good review.

[jmcc]

I think an easy way to deal with the issue would be to make the writers put up a collection of all the games they've ever played and score them (a la IGN's collection feature.) It would give a nice frame of reference for the readers to be able to say "He sure scored X high. What other games does he typically enjoy?" and then be able to look it up.

[hiccupleftovers]

It's called a difference of opinion people. This is one person's opinion...it doesn't mean the whole magazine has gone loco, in fact there's probably a good number of people on thier staff that would given the game a better score I'm sure.

Remember, we aren't scoring games strictly on our personal opinions, we're also scoring them based on how much we think THE GAMING PUBLIC will like them. We've all played games that we personally disliked and scored them well because we've known that most people will like them, and we've also scored games low that we love, because most people won't enjoy them.

That sounds to me like it's magazine policy. Maybe he's just talking about himself and the woman he collaborated with, but I'm more inclined to go with the collective than just the two.


Then isn't it just his opinion of how he thinks the gaming public or moreover his readership will like it? No matter how you dice isn't a review still just an opinion?

It kind of is and it isn't. People are paying to hear what this guy's take on the game is, so it's an opinion AND a service. They assume that he's giving an honest score of the game, so when he rates it on something other than how he actually feels about the game he's not really holding up his end of the deal with the reader.

Good pointt jmcc.

[hiccupleftovers]

Go find a reviewer that you trust, and read their reviews. Some reviewers are all about the graphics. Others are biased towards multiplayer. And others, believe it or not, like gameplay!

Finally, use gamerankings.com to get a more general feel for a particular game, reading the good, the average, and the bad reviews.

Good point as well.

[Platypus Stan]

True, but I'm no fanboy, just I tend to like Nintendo's hard work that they put in their games. The problem is that he lied to the masses therefore this article is worth shit except it changes the public's opinion of the game. I rather have mostly truth as in IGN, etc. than a lie straight to my face on how a game truly is. If this is supposed to help the public decide than what good is it? This truly is a crappy magazine, think about it they will lead the buyer to crap like Enter the Matrix that don't deserve their scores, but to game that is worthy they lower it. Hmmm...sounds suspicous. Also Nintendo many times deserves their score because they actually put some work into what they create so that it is a fun game. The average gamer should be led to gems of games, not crap.

Nintendo's "hard work" these days is giving another developer a stack of cash and telling them to do their work for them.

Which is one of the things people complained about Nintendo not doing during the last generation.

I swear, I'll never understand this rabid anti-Nintendo attitude that seems to permeate every corner of the Internet these days. If you don't like the type of games Nintendo makes, that's fine, but you have to realize that they've always made that type of game and they probably always will. If you don't think their games (either internally developed or otherwise) have generally gotten better since last gen, I can only imagine that you haven't given them the chance they deserve.

Anyway... as far as this Game Informer review is concerned, most people (myself included) are upset by either the content of the review or by GI's reasoning behind it, not by the score. Hell, the best Paper Mario 2 review (http://www.ntsc-uk.com/review.php?platform=ngc&game=PaperMario2) I've read so far gave it a 7/10, but it obviously didn't upset me. Instead of trying to tell me whether or not I'd like the game based on my estimated age and the type of games people in that age group tend to like, this reviewer simply said what he did and didn't like about the game, gave reasons, and left it up to me to decide whether or not the game will interest me.

After reading Game Informer's review (and their reasoning behind it), you'll probably feel insulted. After reading the review I linked to, you'll probably feel informed, and that's all I really ask from game reviews.

[Tromack]

It's called a difference of opinion people. This is one person's opinion...it doesn't mean the whole magazine has gone loco, in fact there's probably a good number of people on thier staff that would given the game a better score I'm sure.

Remember, we aren't scoring games strictly on our personal opinions, we're also scoring them based on how much we think THE GAMING PUBLIC will like them. We've all played games that we personally disliked and scored them well because we've known that most people will like them, and we've also scored games low that we love, because most people won't enjoy them.

That sounds to me like it's magazine policy. Maybe he's just talking about himself and the woman he collaborated with, but I'm more inclined to go with the collective than just the two.


Then isn't it just his opinion of how he thinks the gaming public or moreover his readership will like it? No matter how you dice isn't a review still just an opinion?

Yes, a review is a matter of opinion, but it isn't the critic's job to tell their readers what they like, it is to tell them what they should like. If I were a movie critic and I recommended let's say Alien vs. Predator ( a big budget action film) over let's say Dirty Pretty Things (a small art house flick) just because I knew that the average reader would be more likely to go see Alien vs Predator, then I wouldn't be doing my job. Dirty Pretty Things is a far better movie and I should try to guide them to seek it out.

[opportunity777]

I actually like different scores from different magazines especially if they are low for a particularly high rated game or vice-versa.

I don't really care or anything about the scores, but it's nice to see different opinions :)

[Trakan]

Some people say that one review can make or break the magazine. I really hope that if this is true, that a magazine never gives a game a better score than it deserves just to make fanboys happy. If the magazine or reviewer decide that the game scores a 6.5, I think they should give it that score even if I personally don't agree with it. If I owned the magazine, I wouldn't want to give "highly anticipated" games higher reviews just to sell more copies of the mag. I'd want it to be an honest and quality magazine. That's my take on it anyway.

[gomer1andonly]

Uggg, GI and their wonderful scores. I swear I lost every bit of respect for GI when they gave Mario Party 4 a 3/10 and Mario Party 5 a 2/10 and literally said in the Mario Party 4 article "Don't buy this game". It's one thing if they do not like the game, and I do understand the games were not perfect, but saying loud and clear not to buy the game can make people sway from it (I should know, I did until I finally rented and loved the game).

[Eclipse]

What a dumbass. His opinion on why he gave the game such a score was completely retarded and not thought out.

"Kiddie" is not = to shitty review.
"Kiddie" = to personal bias.
Bad gameplay, graphics, sound, or controls would be = to shitty review.

[x0thedeadzone0x]

Some people say that one review can make or break the magazine. I really hope that if this is true, that a magazine never gives a game a better score than it deserves just to make fanboys happy. If the magazine or reviewer decide that the game scores a 6.5, I think they should give it that score even if I personally don't agree with it. If I owned the magazine, I wouldn't want to give "highly anticipated" games higher reviews just to sell more copies of the mag. I'd want it to be an honest and quality magazine. That's my take on it anyway.

I agree with you too, however, GI did not give a review based on their personal opinion, even if they thought it was fun they based it on if they thought it was good for the general masses or not. That is NOT how a review is supposed to be written, just because a game is a little kiddie doesn't mean you have to cringe from embarassment admitting that you had fun playing it and rating it lower because it won't "appeal to everyone". ALL games won't appeal to everyone. The same thing goes with "a little kiddie" movies, etc. They should've based it on their own fucking opinions, not become complete pushovers and put down shit that they didn't even believe the game to be. That's why it makes me angry. :x

[DenisDFat]

Looks like I'm nmot renewing my Gamestop card.

Gamespy 4 out of 5 80.0%
GameSpot 9.2 out of 10 92.0%
GMR Magazine 9 out of 10 90.0%
eToyChest 10/10/2004 100 out of 100 100.0%
Planet Gamecube 9/15/2004 9.5 out of 10 95.0%
Cube UK 9/1/2004 9.4 out of 10 94.0%


Game Informer TOO BUSY FAPPING TO STATE OF EMERGENCY

[jer7583]

I want to get Paper Mario 2 but It's $50. Might just stick with MAT2 this week, unless I do some trades.

And they can give whatever score they want, but it also can make us think they're catering to what they think their readers want to hear. They overestimated that typically vocal anti-nintendo group that can't stand to play "kiddie" games, and rated the game low to tell them what they wanted to hear. They didn't anticipate that most gamers are over the age of 20 and don't care about if a game is kiddy they just want something fun. Now their readership is going to suffer for it.

[sying]

GI is like the howard stern of Game mags, all hype no substance

[Sheik Rattle Enroll]

I swear, I'll never understand this rabid anti-Nintendo attitude that seems to permeate every corner of the Internet these days. If you don't like the type of games Nintendo makes, that's fine, but you have to realize that they've always made that type of game and they probably always will. If you don't think their games (either internally developed or otherwise) have generally gotten better since last gen, I can only imagine that you haven't given them the chance they deserve.


The rabid anti-Nintendo attitude is to a large degree a backlash against their fans. There's tons of PS2 and XBOX fanboys, but the GC has the most hysterical fan base I've ever seen, probobly because they realize Nintendo is nearing its end as a console maker. If you even dare to suggest anything with the Nintendo name on it is anything less than a gift from God, then these people will rant and rave at you until you go deaf. Which I think is what we're seeing here.

The other part of it is that whatever you think about their games, Nintendo has always been about screwing developers and retailers so alot of people are eager to see them get theirs.

I'd agree that Nintendo's games are better than the N64 gen, but that's not that impressive a feat really. I loved the NES and SNES but thought the N64 deserved a spot in the console graveyard next to the CDI. I'd also argue that Nintendo's games have gotten more childish this generation than in years past as they try and hold onto the one market segment they still have clout in.

[Firebrand]

I swear, I'll never understand this rabid anti-Nintendo attitude that seems to permeate every corner of the Internet these days. If you don't like the type of games Nintendo makes, that's fine, but you have to realize that they've always made that type of game and they probably always will. If you don't think their games (either internally developed or otherwise) have generally gotten better since last gen, I can only imagine that you haven't given them the chance they deserve.

The rabid anti-Nintendo attitude is to a large degree a backlash against their fans. There's tons of PS2 and XBOX fanboys, but the GC has the most hysterical fan base I've ever seen, probobly because they realize Nintendo is nearing its end as a console maker. If you even dare to suggest anything with the Nintendo name on it is anything less than a gift from God, then these people will rant and rave at you until you go deaf. Which I think is what we're seeing here.

The other part of it is that whatever you think about their games, Nintendo has always been about screwing developers and retailers so alot of people are eager to see them get theirs.

I'd agree that Nintendo's games are better than the N64 gen, but that's not that impressive a feat really. I loved the NES and SNES but thought the N64 deserved a spot in the console graveyard next to the CDI. I'd also argue that Nintendo's games have gotten more childish this generation than in years past as they try and hold onto the one market segment they still have clout in.
The N64 had poor 3rd party support, but it was far from a console that "deserved a spot in the console graveyard next to the CDI." That statement brings your credibility into question. Perhaps it was an exagerration; given the nature of your recent posts in regards to Nintendo, I doubt it. A console that sold over 30 million units world-wide, had several critically acclaimed million sellers, and widely popularized multiplayer games is not a console that should be grouped with the CDI. :)

[Nerdy]

I'd rather have points taken off for bad control, bad graphics, bad sound, rather than a reviewer telling me I wouldn't like it due to the concept.

Like we said in the review, it's a very kiddie game - it's target audience is clearly young gamers

By that rationale, Kingdom Hearts featuring primarily Disney characters, is a great kiddie game.

I think there is a Nick Rox level of bias in this review. [/quote]

[DenisDFat]

9.1 FROM IGN

9/8/8/8 33/40 FROM FAMITSU


GAME INFORMER IS STUPID

NON-MATURE GAMES #1

[Platypus Stan]

The rabid anti-Nintendo attitude is to a large degree a backlash against their fans. There's tons of PS2 and XBOX fanboys, but the GC has the most hysterical fan base I've ever seen, probobly because they realize Nintendo is nearing its end as a console maker. If you even dare to suggest anything with the Nintendo name on it is anything less than a gift from God, then these people will rant and rave at you until you go deaf. Which I think is what we're seeing here.

People who are blindly loyal to any company at the expense of their respect for other companies are all equally annoying and their opinions are equally useless. However, the vast majority of these "hysterical" Nintendo fans you're talking about are simply responding to the overwhelming amount of anti-Nintendo propaganda that shows up on the Internet. For example, the recurring claim that Nintendo is nearing its end as a console maker.

Back to the issue at hand, complaints about this Game Informer review were relatively few before they posted their ridiculous explanation. If they'd reviewed Half-Life 2 and said they recognized it was a great game but gave it a 6.75/10 because it won't appeal to younger gamers, I can almost guarantee that the response would've been far worse.

The other part of it is that whatever you think about their games, Nintendo has always been about screwing developers and retailers so alot of people are eager to see them get theirs.

I'd say they've already "got theirs" wouldn't you? They used to almost have a monopoly in this industry. Now they simply have a fanbase just like every other company. They're still one of the more successful companies in the industry, but now they're in that position mainly by just creating games people want to play. There's absolutely no reason for anyone to want to see them sink any lower.

I'd agree that Nintendo's games are better than the N64 gen, but that's not that impressive a feat really. I loved the NES and SNES but thought the N64 deserved a spot in the console graveyard next to the CDI. I'd also argue that Nintendo's games have gotten more childish this generation than in years past as they try and hold onto the one market segment they still have clout in.

I definitely agree that the N64 period was Nintendo's worst yet, but it still deserved most of the respect and success it received. The CDI on the other hand, was almost completely useless. Comparing the two is more of that inflammatory rehetoric we've been talking about.

Also,what do you mean when you say Nintendo's games are getting more childish? If you mean they're getting simpler, I'd say that's a good thing. If I were to create a list of my all time favorite games, I'm sure hardly any of them could be described as "complex". I'll play just about anything (http://users.ign.com/collection/PlatypusStan), but games that are simple and easy to pick up and play are almost exclusively the type of games I keep coming back to year after year.

[ykryptonite13]

just go with your gut on this one. almost every other media gave it a good review so that probably means that it is. don't let one bad review spoil a potential good time. if i had a gamecube, i'd snatch that game up in a second.

[Zenithian Legend]

ba... with what the internet is these days, it's amazing why anyone would want any sort of gaming magazine, regardless of if it was free or not.

[hiccupleftovers]

I swear, I'll never understand this rabid anti-Nintendo attitude that seems to permeate every corner of the Internet these days. If you don't like the type of games Nintendo makes, that's fine, but you have to realize that they've always made that type of game and they probably always will. If you don't think their games (either internally developed or otherwise) have generally gotten better since last gen, I can only imagine that you haven't given them the chance they deserve.


The rabid anti-Nintendo attitude is to a large degree a backlash against their fans. There's tons of PS2 and XBOX fanboys, but the GC has the most hysterical fan base I've ever seen, probobly because they realize Nintendo is nearing its end as a console maker. If you even dare to suggest anything with the Nintendo name on it is anything less than a gift from God, then these people will rant and rave at you until you go deaf. Which I think is what we're seeing here.



By your statement above, you are saying that it is not Nintendo that poeople dislike but its fans. Why should anyone dislike a company because of their fans. The only reason why these people rant and rave at your for suggesting something about a Nintendo game is because they understand that unless you have reasons to bakc up your argument, you probably are just saying that to just say it. The same thing can be said with this GI article. IF they had given some good reasons as to why this game deserved its score (for you since I'm not to sure you understand how games should be rated, i.e. graphics, gameplay, sound, etc, etc,) then I would feel fine with their argument on why it deserves this low of a score but it has been made obvious that they just came up with a number that they thought sounded good for their readership and not soemething based on truth or facts. Just face it already, they lied and came back with the reasons why they lied as someone posted earlier. I've seen Nintendo Power review better than this, and they plenty of times give pretty high scores. What they did is the equivalent of saying a game like Kingdom Hearts is kiddie becuase it has Disney characters in it, so it dserves a score of a 5. There are plenty of Disney movies that I like and obviuos they are intended for a younger audience, so does that make me believe that their movies deserve a 4/10. What would you say if I saw a Disney movie when I was 5 and it deeply impacted me and I thought it was the best movie of all time, would you just disparage that because you thought it were kiddie.I thought after Square came out with Kingdom Hearts that all this "kiddie" game sentiment had gone away as they had shown the world that games can look fun but still look sort of kiddie. I don't have to blow stuff up to deem a game fun.

[pimp tyranny]

what the fuk ever

[Snake2715]

I swear, I'll never understand this rabid anti-Nintendo attitude that seems to permeate every corner of the Internet these days. If you don't like the type of games Nintendo makes, that's fine, but you have to realize that they've always made that type of game and they probably always will. If you don't think their games (either internally developed or otherwise) have generally gotten better since last gen, I can only imagine that you haven't given them the chance they deserve.


The rabid anti-Nintendo attitude is to a large degree a backlash against their fans. There's tons of PS2 and XBOX fanboys, but the GC has the most hysterical fan base I've ever seen, probobly because they realize Nintendo is nearing its end as a console maker. If you even dare to suggest anything with the Nintendo name on it is anything less than a gift from God, then these people will rant and rave at you until you go deaf. Which I think is what we're seeing here.

The other part of it is that whatever you think about their games, Nintendo has always been about screwing developers and retailers so alot of people are eager to see them get theirs.

I'd agree that Nintendo's games are better than the N64 gen, but that's not that impressive a feat really. I loved the NES and SNES but thought the N64 deserved a spot in the console graveyard next to the CDI. I'd also argue that Nintendo's games have gotten more childish this generation than in years past as they try and hold onto the one market segment they still have clout in.

This has been said and defended time and time again. I orginally was going to come into the post with a list of reasons why your statement was wrong, ie Nintenedo being the most profitable of the current gen companies etc. But decided against it.

Your fight is old and not going to change anyones opinion except their opinion of you. Your not very smart are you?

[jlarlee]

Not to incite anything but they do have something against nintendo. Although the mario party games are not the greatest in the world they don't deserve the 1.0 to 3.0 score range the last one got. Im not saying they are 8 or 9 level games but surely no lower than 5

[hiccupleftovers]

Not to incite anything but they do have something against nintendo. Although the mario party games are not the greatest in the world they don't deserve the 1.0 to 3.0 score range the last one got. Im not saying they are 8 or 9 level games but surely no lower than 5

Mario Party 1/2 were sheer brilliant...too bad I can't speak about 3 and higher as I haven't played them yet, even though I own Mario Party 4 from the CC sale.Yes they don't deserve a 1-3. I wonder what GI gave Crash Bash, I should go and check that out.

[Trakan]

I admit the first two mario party games were spectacular. I have played 3-5 and IMHO they sucked. It's the same thing over and over and don't deserve anything higher than a 5.

[jlarlee]

I admit the first two mario party games were spectacular. I have played 3-5 and IMHO they sucked. It's the same thing over and over and don't deserve anything higher than a 5.

i agree that the MP went downhill but I play them all witht he wife and #5 while not great was defiently not a 1.0 or 2.0 game. It seemed to me that they finally found a subpar game and took great glee in giving it absolute horrid reviews.

[Sheik Rattle Enroll]

By your statement above, you are saying that it is not Nintendo that poeople dislike but its fans. Why should anyone dislike a company because of their fans. The only reason why these people rant and rave at your for suggesting something about a Nintendo game is because they understand that unless you have reasons to bakc up your argument, you probably are just saying that to just say it. The same thing can be said with this GI article. IF they had given some good reasons as to why this game deserved its score (for you since I'm not to sure you understand how games should be rated, i.e. graphics, gameplay, sound, etc, etc,) then I would feel fine with their argument on why it deserves this low of a score but it has been made obvious that they just came up with a number that they thought sounded good for their readership and not soemething based on truth or facts. Just face it already, they lied and came back with the reasons why they lied as someone posted earlier. I've seen Nintendo Power review better than this, and they plenty of times give pretty high scores. What they did is the equivalent of saying a game like Kingdom Hearts is kiddie becuase it has Disney characters in it, so it dserves a score of a 5. There are plenty of Disney movies that I like and obviuos they are intended for a younger audience, so does that make me believe that their movies deserve a 4/10. What would you say if I saw a Disney movie when I was 5 and it deeply impacted me and I thought it was the best movie of all time, would you just disparage that because you thought it were kiddie.I thought after Square came out with Kingdom Hearts that all this "kiddie" game sentiment had gone away as they had shown the world that games can look fun but still look sort of kiddie. I don't have to blow stuff up to deem a game fun.

Actually if you read my whole post, I give a number of reasons people don't like Nintendo, including: their games, their fans, their business practices. If you were 20 and had teletubbies posters all over your apartment, yes I would make fun of you. Nintendo Power reviews have high scores? Say it ain't so! Think maybe that could be because it's owned by Nintendo? It's hilarious that the same people who read Nintendo Power are complaining that GI is partisan.

[Medium_Pimpin]

I planned on buying it eventually anyways, but im a cheapassgamer so it's 19.99 or less for this title.

[EndlessChris]

I don't read magazines so I can be pleased to see a game made by a company I like getting a good score. I read it because I want to see someone's opinion on the game. If that person didn't like the game, I'm not going to jump down their throat like an idiot. I'm going to be pleased that I can examine the game from a different viewpoint rather than seeing the same scores from every publication who fears the retribution of ignorant fans.

You people are the reason game journalism doesn't go anywhere, because all you care about is making sure big budget games get the reviews you want to see, and then you complain when they don't.

Personally, I wish someone had told me that Kingdom Hearts blows before I wasted $50 on it. But alas, we need to keep fanboys happy.

Oh, and a 6.75 is a pretty good score in my book. You asshats.

[Sheik Rattle Enroll]

This has been said and defended time and time again. I orginally was going to come into the post with a list of reasons why your statement was wrong, ie Nintenedo being the most profitable of the current gen companies etc. But decided against it.

Your fight is old and not going to change anyones opinion except their opinion of you. Your not very smart are you?

That's exactly what I mean about rabid fans. If you say anything that could even remotely be construed as negative about Nintendo they take it as a personal attack and respond in kind. I'm pretty sure this isn't the place for personal attacks, but we can call each other names if that's what you're looking for.

Nintendo has only been profitable of late in that they have made an enormous amount of money on the currency markets.

If my "fight is old" and "won't change anyone's opinion" then couldn't the same be said of your post? At least mine contained some content besides personal attacks. Yours simply consists of "I could give you an intelligent argument but I won't" followed by some name-calling.

[jmcc]

I don't read magazines so I can be pleased to see a game made by a company I like getting a good score. I read it because I want to see someone's opinion on the game. If that person didn't like the game, I'm not going to jump down their throat like an idiot. I'm going to be pleased that I can examine the game from a different viewpoint rather than seeing the same scores from every publication who fears the retribution of ignorant fans.

You people are the reason game journalism doesn't go anywhere, because all you care about is making sure big budget games get the reviews you want to see, and then you complain when they don't.

Personally, I wish someone had told me that Kingdom Hearts blows before I wasted $50 on it. But alas, we need to keep fanboys happy.

Oh, and a 6.75 is a pretty good score in my book. You asshats.

Did you read what their response was? They didn't rate it based on what they thought. They rated it based on what they thought most people would want to hear about it. It's not an honest evaluation at that point, it's a prediction. And who wants to pay for a guess like that? You can get the same thing for free if you ask some store employee what they think you'll like.

[vanlandw]

man..i think some of you guys are taking this way to seriously....

a review is one persons opinion of a game....

not everybody is going to like the same things

[Duo_Maxwell]

I don't read magazines so I can be pleased to see a game made by a company I like getting a good score. I read it because I want to see someone's opinion on the game. If that person didn't like the game, I'm not going to jump down their throat like an idiot. I'm going to be pleased that I can examine the game from a different viewpoint rather than seeing the same scores from every publication who fears the retribution of ignorant fans.

You people are the reason game journalism doesn't go anywhere, because all you care about is making sure big budget games get the reviews you want to see, and then you complain when they don't.

Personally, I wish someone had told me that Kingdom Hearts blows before I wasted $50 on it. But alas, we need to keep fanboys happy.

Oh, and a 6.75 is a pretty good score in my book. You asshats.

Did you read what their response was? They didn't rate it based on what they thought. They rated it based on what they thought most people would want to hear about it. It's not an honest evaluation at that point, it's a prediction. And who wants to pay for a guess like that? You can get the same thing for free if you ask some store employee what they think you'll like.

I didn't really pay to get the mag though I paid so I could get the Gamestop discount card, as I'm sure most of their readership did. And aparrently you decided to breeze by the guys retraction where he states that he made that post in haste and he actually did include his opinion of the game.

Plus has everyone actually read the review? I mean 6.75 isn't a bad score and IMO without reading the review I can't make a full judgement about what the review has to say. My point is that everybody is overreacting to one score that isn't even all that bad.

[jmcc]

I don't read magazines so I can be pleased to see a game made by a company I like getting a good score. I read it because I want to see someone's opinion on the game. If that person didn't like the game, I'm not going to jump down their throat like an idiot. I'm going to be pleased that I can examine the game from a different viewpoint rather than seeing the same scores from every publication who fears the retribution of ignorant fans.

You people are the reason game journalism doesn't go anywhere, because all you care about is making sure big budget games get the reviews you want to see, and then you complain when they don't.

Personally, I wish someone had told me that Kingdom Hearts blows before I wasted $50 on it. But alas, we need to keep fanboys happy.

Oh, and a 6.75 is a pretty good score in my book. You asshats.

Did you read what their response was? They didn't rate it based on what they thought. They rated it based on what they thought most people would want to hear about it. It's not an honest evaluation at that point, it's a prediction. And who wants to pay for a guess like that? You can get the same thing for free if you ask some store employee what they think you'll like.

I didn't really pay to get the mag though I paid so I could get the Gamestop discount card, as I'm sure most of their readership did. And aparrently you decided to breeze by the guys retraction where he states that he made that post in haste and he actually did include his opinion of the game.

Plus has everyone actually read the review? I mean 6.75 isn't a bad score and IMO without reading the review I can't make a full judgement about what the review has to say. My point is that everybody is overreacting to one score that isn't even all that bad.

I'm sorry, I don't really buy retractions of that nature. I'm sure he wants to take back what he said, yeah, but who knows if it's because it's damaging to the magazine or he really does like the game.

[jlarlee]

I don't read magazines so I can be pleased to see a game made by a company I like getting a good score. I read it because I want to see someone's opinion on the game. If that person didn't like the game, I'm not going to jump down their throat like an idiot. I'm going to be pleased that I can examine the game from a different viewpoint rather than seeing the same scores from every publication who fears the retribution of ignorant fans.

You people are the reason game journalism doesn't go anywhere, because all you care about is making sure big budget games get the reviews you want to see, and then you complain when they don't.

Personally, I wish someone had told me that Kingdom Hearts blows before I wasted $50 on it. But alas, we need to keep fanboys happy.

Oh, and a 6.75 is a pretty good score in my book. You asshats.

Did you read what their response was? They didn't rate it based on what they thought. They rated it based on what they thought most people would want to hear about it. It's not an honest evaluation at that point, it's a prediction. And who wants to pay for a guess like that? You can get the same thing for free if you ask some store employee what they think you'll like.

I didn't really pay to get the mag though I paid so I could get the Gamestop discount card, as I'm sure most of their readership did. And aparrently you decided to breeze by the guys retraction where he states that he made that post in haste and he actually did include his opinion of the game.

Plus has everyone actually read the review? I mean 6.75 isn't a bad score and IMO without reading the review I can't make a full judgement about what the review has to say. My point is that everybody is overreacting to one score that isn't even all that bad.

I'm sorry his retraction and reply just made it worse. because he did it in haste we should ignore it? Obviously he meant it to some degree or he wouldn't say that. he would have been better off just sticking to his guns about his review

[jmcc]

In the end I'll just not factor their review in. I want low reviews of games, though. They'll have picked the game apart and presented all the flaws. Then I can see what I can live with and what I can't, but they need to be honest about why they don't like the game.

[Snake2715]

This has been said and defended time and time again. I orginally was going to come into the post with a list of reasons why your statement was wrong, ie Nintenedo being the most profitable of the current gen companies etc. But decided against it.

Your fight is old and not going to change anyones opinion except their opinion of you. Your not very smart are you?

That's exactly what I mean about rabid fans. If you say anything that could even remotely be construed as negative about Nintendo they take it as a personal attack and respond in kind. I'm pretty sure this isn't the place for personal attacks, but we can call each other names if that's what you're looking for.

Nintendo has only been profitable of late in that they have made an enormous amount of money on the currency markets.

If my "fight is old" and "won't change anyone's opinion" then couldn't the same be said of your post? At least mine contained some content besides personal attacks. Yours simply consists of "I could give you an intelligent argument but I won't" followed by some name-calling.

Well I dont know how long you have been on the internet or following game systems. But this topic of "Nintendo nearing the end" , the topic of them being in trouble because a huge company like Microsoft is giving them good competition, etc has been done a million times.

I did give information letting you know what it seems you dont. You are arguing mis information which leads me to believe one of two things.
A) your not very smart
OR
b)You are terribly misinformed and have yet figured it out

I have called you no names and dont plan on it. What is irritating is that you are on a website discussing blatently wrong info like its the truth.

So They just raised their profit estimates. and until about a year ago they in their 108 year history had never EVER reported a loss. So I would assume that they do indeed know what they are doing.

There were many big companies that tried to sink them and alas they are still around. If the whole pointless "kiddie" (as its called which is totally dumb itself) image wears off then you will see an increase in sales. Killing people can be fun in a game but there has to be alternate games to play.

Nintendo has always been a pioneer and they are once again rying new things. The day that the tides turn for Sony is the day you will read stuff like "its about time Nintendo was a major competitor" etc. Because secretly almost all the publishers and reivewers out their played a Nintendo as a child and to be honest playing games is a way of escape and going to have fun which most people associate as "childesh" or "kiddie" anyway.

Your posts basically said

1. Nintendo has a bunch of rabid fanboys, all companies, stars, groups do sorry.

2. Nintendo is nearing the end. This is obviously false and you yourself said tehy are making money. Of course the exchange rate effects them they are a japan based company.

3. I do remember reading any solid information from you besides that. Who cares what the reviewer gave the point was he stated himself that he gave a particular number on what he thought the average consumer would give it. Which is not right.

Now here we are doing what I didnt want to do. I dont have the time or patience for it. Do what you want buy the systems you want and decide by yourself what you like. The reason the "Nintendo fanboys" are so tense is becuase of the unecessary attacks on one of their passions.

[Platypus Stan]

Mario Party 1/2 were sheer brilliant...too bad I can't speak about 3 and higher as I haven't played them yet, even though I own Mario Party 4 from the CC sale.Yes they don't deserve a 1-3. I wonder what GI gave Crash Bash, I should go and check that out.

They gave Crash Bash a 6.5 and Sonic Shuffle a 7. Both were significantly less impressive than Mario Party 5 (which received a 2).

Actually if you read my whole post, I give a number of reasons people don't like Nintendo, including: their games, their fans, their business practices. If you were 20 and had teletubbies posters all over your apartment, yes I would make fun of you. Nintendo Power reviews have high scores? Say it ain't so! Think maybe that could be because it's owned by Nintendo? It's hilarious that the same people who read Nintendo Power are complaining that GI is partisan.

But if I were 20 and had a Sam & Max poster, would you make fun of me? How about a Simpsons poster? I don't see how you can compare Nintendo to Teletubbies while claiming that your attitude stems from Nintendo's overly defensive fans. Perhaps they're defensive because of the type of ridiculous inflammatory comments you've been throwing out there in every post in this topic so far.

Also, I believe his point was that Nintendo Power is obviously biased and he was surprised to see an even less trustworthy review in a supposedly unbiased magazine.

That's exactly what I mean about rabid fans. If you say anything that could even remotely be construed as negative about Nintendo they take it as a personal attack and respond in kind. I'm pretty sure this isn't the place for personal attacks, but we can call each other names if that's what you're looking for.

Nintendo has only been profitable of late in that they have made an enormous amount of money on the currency markets.

If my "fight is old" and "won't change anyone's opinion" then couldn't the same be said of your post? At least mine contained some content besides personal attacks. Yours simply consists of "I could give you an intelligent argument but I won't" followed by some name-calling.

When people make up facts in order to make Nintendo look worse than they are, they're insulting the intelligence of their fans. Snake2715 just took a more direct approach. If you honestly expect someone to believe that Nintendo is only making money because of fluctuations in the international currency markets, you're basically saying, "You're not very smart, are you?"

[Sheik Rattle Enroll]

But if I were 20 and had a Sam & Max poster, would you make fun of me? How about a Simpsons poster? I don't see how you can compare Nintendo to Teletubbies while claiming that your attitude stems from Nintendo's overly defensive fans. Perhaps they're defensive because of the type of ridiculous inflammatory comments you've been throwing out there in every post in this topic so far.

Also, I believe his point was that Nintendo Power is obviously biased and he was surprised to see an even less trustworthy review in a supposedly unbiased magazine.

I wasn't comparing Nintendo to Teletubbies. All I said was that if he had a Teletubbies poster I'd make fun of him. The point was to illustrate my point about age differences and the magazine reviewer taking them into account. Don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't claim my attitude comes from Nintendo's fans. I replied to the poster that there is a pervasive anti-nintendo attitude in part due to their rabid fanbase. I think my point was abundantly clear so please stop trying to twist my words.

How is GI even less trustworthy than Nintendo Power exactly?


When people make up facts in order to make Nintendo look worse than they are, they're insulting the intelligence of their fans. Snake2715 just took a more direct approach. If you honestly expect someone to believe that Nintendo is only making money because of fluctuations in the international currency markets, you're basically saying, "You're not very smart, are you?"

What facts have I made up? I admit I should have phrased my remark about the currency markets better as I didn't mean to imply they wouldn't be profitable without that income, but certainly much less profitable.

If my goal was just to make Nintendo look bad I certainly wouldn't have to make up facts, as I go to a school run by Nintendo.

In short, I realize you feel passionately about the subject, but please stop telling me what I'm trying to say.

[MorPhiend]

Wholy ****. As if the first game wasn't kiddie? The shaq-fuing graphics are made of PAPER. This should not affect the score. If they ENJOYED playing it, they should put that in their review some how, some way. Not "well, the graphics were looking a little papery and kiddie, and I didn't see any headshots, so it won't appeal to most gamers. I rate it teh 6!!!!11!!1111 one". Christ, I'm gonna be pissed when my mag comes in the mail.

Oh yeah, and the first was a shaq-fuing AWESOME game. One of my favorites of all time. Nothing will change that... unless this one is better in every way.

I totally agree. The whole deal is, a game is to be scored for how well it measures up to the type of gameplay it was designed to deliver. This kind of ludicrous rational for one's obvious bias would lead to someone giving Madden 2005 a 4.0/10 because "...everyone doesn't like football". Or what if someone had given Final Fantasy III (VI) a 5.2/10 because "...I like Pez." Of course there are going to be people who don't like a particular game. But if you're biased, just let it show so that people know where you are coming from. I think it was Ocarina of Time that one of the EGM Review Crew gave a 9.5. There probably hasn't been someone in all of videogame history who got more hate mail. But .5 short of perfection is still an awesome score (as long it isn't from NP who throws perfect scores out like their going out of style...). And he had good reason for the score and he stood by it. There were things he just didn't like about the game. But a 6.75 for a game that is almost universally loved is awful. A 6.75 is swimming in the depths of the mire of mediocrity for such a title. But he is still entitled to his opinion (however wrong it may be :twisted: ). What makes this such a terrible tale is how he then gives a terribly awkward and incompetent reason for his score. He then retracts that and pretty much says, "Now, I can see I've enraged you all and many of you are going to end your subscription for my stupidity. I also am afraid of losing my job. Therefore, here is another piece of crap explanation to my score." That's what I have a problem with; someone making a blunder, trying to explain it away, realizing they have made it worse and giving yet an almost opposite answer out. With such vacillation, it's amazing he isn't leading the polls for President.

[Platypus Stan]

I wasn't comparing Nintendo to Teletubbies. All I said was that if he had a Teletubbies poster I'd make fun of him. The point was to illustrate my point about age differences and the magazine reviewer taking them into account. Don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't claim my attitude comes from Nintendo's fans. I replied to the poster that there is a pervasive anti-nintendo attitude in part due to their rabid fanbase. I think my point was abundantly clear so please stop trying to twist my words.

How is GI even less trustworthy than Nintendo Power exactly?

OK, so you were indirectly comparing Teletubbies to a Nintendo game, not to Nintendo itself. Super Mario RPG was a game that could be enjoyed by everyone. Paper Mario was a game that could be enjoyed by everyone. And according to every non-GI Paper Mario 2 review I've read, it's also a game that can be enjoyed by everyone. On the other hand, Teletubbies is specifically designed to appeal to children and only to children. Nintendo has only produced one game along those lines this generation (Pokemon Channel).

Your point about the anti-Nintendo attitude and its relation to Nintendo's fans is perfectly clear, but it's also completely backwards. I maintain that Nintendo fans appear overly defensive merely because Nintendo is the most common target for attack. I defend everything I love, but I obviously have far more opportunities to defend Nintendo than I do companies like Treasure or Blizzard.

As far as the trustworthiness of Nintendo Power or Game Informer, I'd say they're about equal after this incident. While we can assume NP's reviews are biased since they're owned by a videogame company, we now know GI's reviews are biased because the reviewer told us as much.

What facts have I made up? I admit I should have phrased my remark about the currency markets better as I didn't mean to imply they wouldn't be profitable without that income, but certainly much less profitable.

If my goal was just to make Nintendo look bad I certainly wouldn't have to make up facts, as I go to a school run by Nintendo.

In short, I realize you feel passionately about the subject, but please stop telling me what I'm trying to say.

1) You said Nintendo games are given high scores to avoid pissing of the fans. If anything, Nintendo's games tend to be at a disadvantage since many reviewers hold them up the the ridiculously high standards set by their previous games.

2) You said, "Nintendo's "hard work" these days is giving another developer a stack of cash and telling them to do their work for them." What about all the games they internally develop? They are no fewer and no less amazing than in the past.

3) You said that Nintendo is "nearing its end as a console maker". Barring a significant, unprecedented shift in both the handheld and home console markets, there is simply no way that will happen in the foreseeable future.

4) You said that Nintendo's games have gotten "more childish" lately. Depending on what you meant by that, it's either untrue or it's a change for the better.

5) You continue to stress the impact that foreign currency markets have on Nintendo's profits. Excluding the impact of the currency markets, Nintendo would still be about as profitable as the whole of Sony. The same Sony which is also doing better than expected because of those same markets, yet isn't being routinely chastised for it.

Also, from reading your earlier comments in this topic, you seem to be misunderstanding why people are upset. We aren't upset about the score, we're upset about a review that doesn't sufficiently support their verdict, and a response to the review that is nothing short of devastating to the magazine's credibility if it is indeed true.

[hiccupleftovers]

I don't read magazines so I can be pleased to see a game made by a company I like getting a good score. I read it because I want to see someone's opinion on the game. If that person didn't like the game, I'm not going to jump down their throat like an idiot. I'm going to be pleased that I can examine the game from a different viewpoint rather than seeing the same scores from every publication who fears the retribution of ignorant fans.

You people are the reason game journalism doesn't go anywhere, because all you care about is making sure big budget games get the reviews you want to see, and then you complain when they don't.

Personally, I wish someone had told me that Kingdom Hearts blows before I wasted $50 on it. But alas, we need to keep fanboys happy.

Oh, and a 6.75 is a pretty good score in my book. You asshats.

Did you read what their response was? They didn't rate it based on what they thought. They rated it based on what they thought most people would want to hear about it. It's not an honest evaluation at that point, it's a prediction. And who wants to pay for a guess like that? You can get the same thing for free if you ask some store employee what they think you'll like.

I didn't really pay to get the mag though I paid so I could get the Gamestop discount card, as I'm sure most of their readership did. And aparrently you decided to breeze by the guys retraction where he states that he made that post in haste and he actually did include his opinion of the game.

Plus has everyone actually read the review? I mean 6.75 isn't a bad score and IMO without reading the review I can't make a full judgement about what the review has to say. My point is that everybody is overreacting to one score that isn't even all that bad.

I'm sorry his retraction and reply just made it worse. because he did it in haste we should ignore it? Obviously he meant it to some degree or he wouldn't say that. he would have been better off just sticking to his guns about his review

I didn't buy his retraction either. It sounded more like he was trying to do damage control but in the end failed and only incited angry readers as most of us (minus sheik rattle enroll and a couple others) are. He probably just did it so that he could try to give his ass a little protection before it goes on the chopping block and he is fired.

[hiccupleftovers]

By your statement above, you are saying that it is not Nintendo that poeople dislike but its fans. Why should anyone dislike a company because of their fans. The only reason why these people rant and rave at your for suggesting something about a Nintendo game is because they understand that unless you have reasons to bakc up your argument, you probably are just saying that to just say it. The same thing can be said with this GI article. IF they had given some good reasons as to why this game deserved its score (for you since I'm not to sure you understand how games should be rated, i.e. graphics, gameplay, sound, etc, etc,) then I would feel fine with their argument on why it deserves this low of a score but it has been made obvious that they just came up with a number that they thought sounded good for their readership and not soemething based on truth or facts. Just face it already, they lied and came back with the reasons why they lied as someone posted earlier. I've seen Nintendo Power review better than this, and they plenty of times give pretty high scores. What they did is the equivalent of saying a game like Kingdom Hearts is kiddie becuase it has Disney characters in it, so it dserves a score of a 5. There are plenty of Disney movies that I like and obviuos they are intended for a younger audience, so does that make me believe that their movies deserve a 4/10. What would you say if I saw a Disney movie when I was 5 and it deeply impacted me and I thought it was the best movie of all time, would you just disparage that because you thought it were kiddie.I thought after Square came out with Kingdom Hearts that all this "kiddie" game sentiment had gone away as they had shown the world that games can look fun but still look sort of kiddie. I don't have to blow stuff up to deem a game fun.

Actually if you read my whole post, I give a number of reasons people don't like Nintendo, including: their games, their fans, their business practices. If you were 20 and had teletubbies posters all over your apartment, yes I would make fun of you. Nintendo Power reviews have high scores? Say it ain't so! Think maybe that could be because it's owned by Nintendo? It's hilarious that the same people who read Nintendo Power are complaining that GI is partisan.

"Perhaps they're defensive because of the type of ridiculous inflammatory comments you've been throwing out there in every post in this topic so far. "-Platypus Stan.

So far in your argumnet, you have shown me no factual evidence of what your allegations of Nintendo.

Actually if you read my whole post, I give a number of reasons people don't like Nintendo, including: their games, their fans, their business practices. If you were 20 and had teletubbies posters all over your apartment, yes I would make fun of you. Nintendo Power reviews have high scores? Say it ain't so! Think maybe that could be because it's owned by Nintendo? It's hilarious that the same people who read Nintendo Power are complaining that GI is partisan.

Also, I believe his point was that Nintendo Power is obviously biased and he was surprised to see an even less trustworthy review in a supposedly unbiased magazine.

Platypus Stan seems to have hit the nail on the head while you continually chase your tail and give us the same rhetoric. It doesn't take a 3rd grader to understand that Nintendo Power has its biases towards NIntendo (i knew that at least at that time) as does OPM, OXM, Xbox Nation, but GI which is supposed to be a multiplatform magazine with no allegiances and is supposed to be third person perspective of games and is supposed to give us an honest opinion on what they felt the game, not as has been shown in his rebuttals, "what the readership wants to hear". I would want no less lets say from a car magazine to give me their honest true opinions on a car product or how a car truly is.

[Sheik Rattle Enroll]

So far in your argumnet, you have shown me no factual evidence of what your allegations of Nintendo.

Platypus Stan seems to have hit the nail on the head while you continually chase your tail and give us the same rhetoric. It doesn't take a 3rd grader to understand that Nintendo Power has its biases towards NIntendo (i knew that at least at that time) as does OPM, OXM, Xbox Nation, but GI which is supposed to be a multiplatform magazine with no allegiances and is supposed to be third person perspective of games and is supposed to give us an honest opinion on what they felt the game, not as has been shown in his rebuttals, "what the readership wants to hear". I would want no less lets say from a car magazine to give me their honest true opinions on a car product or how a car truly is.

What are my allegations against Nintendo exactly? If you're talking about how I mentioned that many people dislike them because of their business practices, then a simple google search will enlighten you as to how they used to blackmail retailers. A little more digging and you'll understand how they've treated third party developers and why they abandoned Nintendo in droves as soon as there was viable competition. I also reccommend the book "Game Over", even though it's more from a pro-Nintendo perspective, it tells you a lot about how Nintendo operates. If you're referring to the fact that I thought the N64 had weaker software than the SNES and NES, then you realize that I was just stating my opinion and not a fact, right?

I'm giving you the same rhetoric because my point is the same no matter how people try and twist what I say. They took their readership into account and gave a review they thought would be meaningful to them. They're supposed to tell you what they think about the game and they did, they just took the "kiddiness" of it into account in the final score, which you disagree with. I'm sorry if my thinking hasn't changed to your liking.


If anybody feels the need to continue to call me stupid or anything more vile, feel free to do so in PMs, as I won't be responding to this thread any longer, as it's obvious that just by pointing out that the magazine might not be the tool of the anti-Nintendo satanists, I've touched some kind of nerve and caused this thread to degenerate into people pulling my posts apart instead of actually talking about the topic.

[jmcc]

So far in your argumnet, you have shown me no factual evidence of what your allegations of Nintendo.

Platypus Stan seems to have hit the nail on the head while you continually chase your tail and give us the same rhetoric. It doesn't take a 3rd grader to understand that Nintendo Power has its biases towards NIntendo (i knew that at least at that time) as does OPM, OXM, Xbox Nation, but GI which is supposed to be a multiplatform magazine with no allegiances and is supposed to be third person perspective of games and is supposed to give us an honest opinion on what they felt the game, not as has been shown in his rebuttals, "what the readership wants to hear". I would want no less lets say from a car magazine to give me their honest true opinions on a car product or how a car truly is.

What are my allegations against Nintendo exactly? If you're talking about how I mentioned that many people dislike them because of their business practices, then a simple google search will enlighten you as to how they used to blackmail retailers. A little more digging and you'll understand how they've treated third party developers and why they abandoned Nintendo in droves as soon as there was viable competition. I also reccommend the book "Game Over", even though it's more from a pro-Nintendo perspective, it tells you a lot about how Nintendo operates. If you're referring to the fact that I thought the N64 had weaker software than the SNES and NES, then you realize that I was just stating my opinion and not a fact, right?

I'm giving you the same rhetoric because my point is the same no matter how people try and twist what I say. They took their readership into account and gave a review they thought would be meaningful to them. They're supposed to tell you what they think about the game and they did, they just took the "kiddiness" of it into account in the final score, which you disagree with. I'm sorry if my thinking hasn't changed to your liking.


If anybody feels the need to continue to call me stupid or anything more vile, feel free to do so in PMs, as I won't be responding to this thread any longer, as it's obvious that just by pointing out that the magazine might not be the tool of the anti-Nintendo satanists, I've touched some kind of nerve and caused this thread to degenerate into people pulling my posts apart instead of actually talking about the topic.

They didn't take the kiddiness into regard. They took what they percieved as their readership's bias against it and rated the game low so as to match up with what they thought their more adult crowd would want to hear.

Frankly, it's good that you're running away from the discussion, since you can't seem to grasp the point that the score isn't what people don't like, it's how they arrived at the score.

[x0thedeadzone0x]

Well, I have played the game, and I can now officially say that GI fucking sucks ass. They have no taste in games whatsoever.

*dives back to GC*

[Zero3]

Flip-floppin, I say.

What Mario game DOESN'T look kiddie? I mean, c'mon. Friggin' fat plumber with a mustache shooting fireballs out of his hand... got bullets flying everywhere named Bullet Bill... clouds with FACES ON THEM. Geeze. It's like saying Katamari Damacy is crappy because it's too kiddy/the graphics are like seven polygons (I love it, by the way).

Pfft.

Now if American McGee took a stab at Mario or something, then it'd be different.

Aw, I'm just blowin' smoke outta my butt anyway.

[hiccupleftovers]

Well, I have played the game, and I can now officially say that GI shaq-fuing sucks ass. They have no taste in games whatsoever.

*dives back to GC*

It's become all the more obvious with that one guy's post and the fact that as I look through their mag. a little more in-depth, I see that they don't know how to give just scores. Anyway I'm done with my ranting and would like to say congrats deadzone on finding a copy of PM2 after I haerd you weren't able to. I myself am waiting to pick it up once this alleged TRU sale starts since it will be my opportunity to save some money that I don't have. Well it's good to hear that about PM2.

[hiccupleftovers]

So far in your argumnet, you have shown me no factual evidence of what your allegations of Nintendo.

Platypus Stan seems to have hit the nail on the head while you continually chase your tail and give us the same rhetoric. It doesn't take a 3rd grader to understand that Nintendo Power has its biases towards NIntendo (i knew that at least at that time) as does OPM, OXM, Xbox Nation, but GI which is supposed to be a multiplatform magazine with no allegiances and is supposed to be third person perspective of games and is supposed to give us an honest opinion on what they felt the game, not as has been shown in his rebuttals, "what the readership wants to hear". I would want no less lets say from a car magazine to give me their honest true opinions on a car product or how a car truly is.

What are my allegations against Nintendo exactly? If you're talking about how I mentioned that many people dislike them because of their business practices, then a simple google search will enlighten you as to how they used to blackmail retailers. A little more digging and you'll understand how they've treated third party developers and why they abandoned Nintendo in droves as soon as there was viable competition. I also reccommend the book "Game Over", even though it's more from a pro-Nintendo perspective, it tells you a lot about how Nintendo operates. If you're referring to the fact that I thought the N64 had weaker software than the SNES and NES, then you realize that I was just stating my opinion and not a fact, right?

I'm giving you the same rhetoric because my point is the same no matter how people try and twist what I say. They took their readership into account and gave a review they thought would be meaningful to them. They're supposed to tell you what they think about the game and they did, they just took the "kiddiness" of it into account in the final score, which you disagree with. I'm sorry if my thinking hasn't changed to your liking.


If anybody feels the need to continue to call me stupid or anything more vile, feel free to do so in PMs, as I won't be responding to this thread any longer, as it's obvious that just by pointing out that the magazine might not be the tool of the anti-Nintendo satanists, I've touched some kind of nerve and caused this thread to degenerate into people pulling my posts apart instead of actually talking about the topic.

I'm really getting tired of responding to you, becase it has already been made apparent your allegations, etc. by me and other posters such as Platypus Stan and the lengthy argument given by Snake2715, so I just won't and let you go by since I see that you have come to understand that GI's review of a game by giving "what the readership wants to hear".

[x0thedeadzone0x]

Well, I have played the game, and I can now officially say that GI shaq-fuing sucks ass. They have no taste in games whatsoever.

*dives back to GC*

It's become all the more obvious with that one guy's post and the fact that as I look through their mag. a little more in-depth, I see that they don't know how to give just scores. Anyway I'm done with my ranting and would like to say congrats deadzone on finding a copy of PM2 after I haerd you weren't able to. I myself am waiting to pick it up once this alleged TRU sale starts since it will be my opportunity to save some money that I don't have. Well it's good to hear that about PM2.

Thanks for that, I wanted it yesterday but couldn't find it anywhere since it was columbus day (holiday) so nobody had any in-stock. Today though I just went straight to the store, I'm so happy <3. They indeed don't know how to give scores. Nobody listen to them... ever. Get this game. Now. It is so fucking good. It's worth the 50$ by far. It's worth buying a GC for if you don't have one. Well, that's all from me. Thanks again hiccup, and good luck on that TRU sale.

[Platypus Stan]

It doesn't take a 3rd grader to understand that Nintendo Power has its biases towards NIntendo (i knew that at least at that time) as does OPM, OXM, Xbox Nation, but GI which is supposed to be a multiplatform magazine with no allegiances and is supposed to be third person perspective of games and is supposed to give us an honest opinion on what they felt the game, not as has been shown in his rebuttals, "what the readership wants to hear". I would want no less lets say from a car magazine to give me their honest true opinions on a car product or how a car truly is.

To be fair, I haven't noticed any distinguishable bias in XBN. They're actually one of the more trustworthy magazines out there, which is amazing considering they're platform specific. I'd say OPM is about on the same level as Nintendo Power, while OXM is just plain disgusting and insulting (I want to know why I should be enjoying my Xbox, not why I should hate my GameCube or PS2).

What are my allegations against Nintendo exactly? If you're talking about how I mentioned that many people dislike them because of their business practices, then a simple google search will enlighten you as to how they used to blackmail retailers. A little more digging and you'll understand how they've treated third party developers and why they abandoned Nintendo in droves as soon as there was viable competition. I also reccommend the book "Game Over", even though it's more from a pro-Nintendo perspective, it tells you a lot about how Nintendo operates.

I realize you said you're no longer participating in this topic, but allow me to reply anyway. I used to be one of the people who was disgusted by Nintendo's practices and loved seeing people fight against them (Tengen, Game Genie, anti-trust lawsuits, etc.) However, as it stands right now, Nintendo is exactly where they should be. They used to have the muscle to fight unfairly and give themselves an advantage over companies who deserved a better chance. Now they've been "reduced" to simply giving gamers what they want in order to make money. The playing field is level, and the only reason Nintendo is still one of the more successful companies in the business is because they create some of the best games in the business. I can see no reason why anyone would want that to change.

[HSidwolf]

Ugh, I cringe whenever I see someone describing a game like this as "kiddie." Paper Mario 2 is not "kiddie," it has universal appeal. Just because a 10 year old can pick up and enjoy Wind Waker doesn't mean that it's a kiddie game made for little children only. If anything, games like Paper Mario are harder to make than games you might consider more adult-oriented because you're not trying to appeal only to a specific target audience with similar preferences and tendencies. Don't get me wrong, I love games with adult themes and content too(I usually like them better actually), but Paper Mario and Wind Waker invoked feelings in me that I couldn't get from getting 20 headshots in a row in a violent FPS. I played Wind Waker with a huge smile on my face and thought the game was fucking magical, and I'm well over 20. Am I immature or stupid? You decide. My girlfriend is in a PhD program and she loves playing Animal Crossing GC despite its N64-era graphics and simple dialogue. They're not for kids, they're for everyone who enjoys a good time. In fact, I'm gonna preserve these games so I can play them with my kids someday.

You know what games I do consider "kiddie" though? Games like BMX XXX, Panty Raider, and DOA Beach Volleyball. They're shallow, immature, and tailored to the biological urges of teenagers in puberty. Ironic, isn't it? Well if they think Paper Mario and Wind Waker are too "kiddie," screw 'em. They can keep stuffing their faces with crappy ESRB Mature Rating games. I'm not the one missing out.

[Eclipse]

yo, sheikrattlenroll..Got some advice for you..

http://smirking.com/gallery/data/media/9/shut-up.jpg

and stop acting as if youre not being inflammatory with your comments.
have a good day. :o


Paper mario..Is..a well designed game which has universal appeal, an interesting graphics style, addicitve rpg elements, and a very good story.. You cannot brand a game 'kiddie' without even having had played it. Thats just..well, idiotic.

Everybody hell bent on flaming Nintendo..how about this Scenario:
If it werent for Nintendo, the videogame industry after the first crash in the Atari age, would have never recovered. How about that? ....And wed be sitting around in 2004 on 'Cheapassboargamer.com' discussing the new Risk.

-eclipse

[SpoDaddy]

So, by their rationale, a game like Resident Evil targeted at adults would have to be docked points since not everyone (i.e. kids) can enjoy it? Last I saw they were giving games like Grand Theft Auto Game of the Year awards.

The next reviewer that docks points off a good game because he thinks it's "kiddy" needs a bat to the face. If a game has gameplay that is entertaining to adults then it's not a kiddie game, no matter how many cute little creatures and rainbows it's packing. Game Informer are a bunch of Playstation-sucking virgin assholes.

[Reality's Fringe]

I'm interested in reading what the GI fan base had to say about the "Official response".

[robwhit1]

Well, I have read GI for a long time and I normally agree with there reviews. However, I know that I must normally ignore the review if it is Mario game. They allways rate them lower. I don't know why but they have a strong, unprofessional bias against those games. I have Paper mario and it is a good game esp. if you like the GBA Mario and Lugi game.

[Magician]

I'm interested in reading what the GI fan base had to say about the "Official response".

Do you mean the first response?

I checked their message boards a few days ago. It seems that the general populace there is praising Jeremy for his "honesty and eloquent response". I was very confused when I read the responses..

However... I'm very interested to see their responses to his statement withdrawal. In fact, I think I'll swing by there and check right now.

[Eclipse]

From: Sheik Rattle Enroll
To: Eclipse
Posted: October 13, 2004, 6:33 am
Subject: Regarding advice
I've got some advice for you: kiss my ass.

Sheikrattlenroll answers in a professional, mature matter through a pm.
:rofl:

goooo SHEIK! \:D/

[Graystone]

I wish gamestop would have the opition of the discout card with mag sub for 10 or not for 5 like ebs edge card.

[hiccupleftovers]

I'm interested in reading what the GI fan base had to say about the "Official response".

I too am interested in seeing how their readership takes it. I'm waiting for next month's GI to see all of the responses that they recieve on how idiotic they were in their score.

[SkyGheNe]

So far in your argumnet, you have shown me no factual evidence of what your allegations of Nintendo.

Platypus Stan seems to have hit the nail on the head while you continually chase your tail and give us the same rhetoric. It doesn't take a 3rd grader to understand that Nintendo Power has its biases towards NIntendo (i knew that at least at that time) as does OPM, OXM, Xbox Nation, but GI which is supposed to be a multiplatform magazine with no allegiances and is supposed to be third person perspective of games and is supposed to give us an honest opinion on what they felt the game, not as has been shown in his rebuttals, "what the readership wants to hear". I would want no less lets say from a car magazine to give me their honest true opinions on a car product or how a car truly is.

What are my allegations against Nintendo exactly? If you're talking about how I mentioned that many people dislike them because of their business practices, then a simple google search will enlighten you as to how they used to blackmail retailers. A little more digging and you'll understand how they've treated third party developers and why they abandoned Nintendo in droves as soon as there was viable competition. I also reccommend the book "Game Over", even though it's more from a pro-Nintendo perspective, it tells you a lot about how Nintendo operates. If you're referring to the fact that I thought the N64 had weaker software than the SNES and NES, then you realize that I was just stating my opinion and not a fact, right?

I'm giving you the same rhetoric because my point is the same no matter how people try and twist what I say. They took their readership into account and gave a review they thought would be meaningful to them. They're supposed to tell you what they think about the game and they did, they just took the "kiddiness" of it into account in the final score, which you disagree with. I'm sorry if my thinking hasn't changed to your liking.


If anybody feels the need to continue to call me stupid or anything more vile, feel free to do so in PMs, as I won't be responding to this thread any longer, as it's obvious that just by pointing out that the magazine might not be the tool of the anti-Nintendo satanists, I've touched some kind of nerve and caused this thread to degenerate into people pulling my posts apart instead of actually talking about the topic.

if you wanna see poor business practices and HORRIBLE customer service...Just turn to sony! They got nintendo beat.

[mkelehan]

GI also gave Katamari Damacy its lowest (counted) review on GameRankings. I've never liked GI.

[jmcc]

GI also gave Katamari Damacy its lowest (counted) review on GameRankings. I've never liked GI.

An 8/10 is fine, though.

[hiccupleftovers]

GI also gave Katamari Damacy its lowest (counted) review on GameRankings. I've never liked GI.

An 8/10 is fine, though.

You beat me to it, but an 8 out of 10 is actually quite respectable. I really odn't see their point, I would have given it a 9/10 at the very least, but maybe they didn't like the graphics which are a little old, but nothing to bad if you ask me. It's just this atrocity tat they have given Paper Mario 2.

[jlarlee]

Got mine today according to them leisure Suit Larry is 0.75 better than Paper Mario. I will now go wash out my eyes with acid

[Platypus Stan]

Got mine today according to them leisure Suit Larry is 0.75 better than Paper Mario. I will now go wash out my eyes with acid

Did they follow their policy and mark LSL down for only appealing to prepubescent males?

[Reality's Fringe]

No, because every guy loves boobs and booty.

[pumbaa]

My goodness, give me a friken break. Honestly, raise your hand if you considered GI a respectable magazine... lets count them. Any magazine that a friken employee of GameStop tries to shove down my throat kinda loses some points. When Billy from PlanetGamecube went over to the website, I actually perked up... but come on, it's a magazine score. The ONLY reason to get "pissed off" is that this'll push the gamerankings percentage down, from the 90% (in my opinion) it should be. ::shrugs:: The game is a great Sequel, building on the original Paper Mario in ways that make it better. It's hilarious, and its humor definitly scews towards Nintendo fans, thats about it.

::end rant::

[DenisDFat]

it's not about the scores as much as the reason given in a sort of damage conrol. And then the damag control of the damage control. And the the EIC's damage control of that.

[sying]

I don't have a subscription to the magazine or frequent GameStop, so I was wondering if anyone has read this review. I found the score on gamerankings, but since it's a print publication, there's no link to the text of the review. The other sites listed give Paper Mario marks in the 9-10 range, so I don't know if Gi has tired of 2D gaming in general or found particular faults with this title. Any info or thoughts are appreciated.

PS I'm picking up my copy tomorrow regardless!

The question I'm asking is why you are reading GI in the first place? I go to the back or the cardboard coupons and cutt those mothers out and recycle the rest of the Mag

[Parathod]

They should probably adopt a three person review system like EGM.