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

C

coolz481

CAGiversary!
Feedback
59 (100%)
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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)
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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.
 
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
 
^^^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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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?
 
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.
 
[quote name='Kaijufan']GI thought Enter the Matrix was better then Paper Mario 2. :lol:[/quote]

Wholy shit, that's just sad. They now officially have lost all credibility with me and their reviewing system.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

So they shouldn't base it on how much enojoyment they think the average gamer will get out of it?
 
[quote name='Sheik Rattle Enroll'][quote name='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.[/quote]

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

No, they should base it on how good they thought it was, not on what others say.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

Nintendo's "hard work" these days is giving another developer a stack of cash and telling them to do their work for them.
 
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)
 
[quote name='hiccupleftovers']
No, they should base it on how good they thought it was, not on what others say.[/quote]

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?
 
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.
 
[quote name='Sheik Rattle Enroll'][quote name='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.[/quote]

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

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='Sheik Rattle Enroll'][quote name='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.[/quote]

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

Of course not. They can't possibly gauge that. They have to limit the review to how they feel about it.
 
[quote name='hiccupleftovers'][quote name='Sheik Rattle Enroll'][quote name='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.[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

You mean 2D adventure game...I hope
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

[quote name='game informer']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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='Sheik Rattle Enroll'][quote name='hiccupleftovers']
No, they should base it on how good they thought it was, not on what others say.[/quote]

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

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

[quote name='Sheik Rattle Enroll']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?[/[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='hiccupleftovers'][quote name='Sheik Rattle Enroll'][quote name='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.[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

You mean 2D adventure game...I hope[/quote]

Yaeh, good catch.
 
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.
 
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='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.[/quote]

[quote name='game informer']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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]


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?
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='Sheik Rattle Enroll'][quote name='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.[/quote]

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

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

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?
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='jmcc'][quote name='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.[/quote]

[quote name='game informer']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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]


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?[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='vherub'] They may deter others from buying the game, possibly thereby lessening chances for a sequel or financially hurting the studio, but thats it.

[/quote]


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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='jmcc'][quote name='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.[/quote]

[quote name='game informer']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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]


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?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Good pointt jmcc.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

Good point as well.
 
[quote name='Sheik Rattle Enroll'][quote name='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.[/quote]

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

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 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.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='jmcc'][quote name='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.[/quote]

[quote name='game informer']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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]


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?[/quote]

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.
 
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 :)
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top