Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - General Gaming - GI actually gives a 10
| User | Post |
Zem
Posts: 245/1107 |
Backing up a little, re: "It is a Nintendo product, and to some people Nintendo makes kids games." GI gave Pikmin 2 "game of the month" when that came out. So that's not it. |
Alastor the Stylish
Posts: 2485/7620 |
I would actually say it's much better. Also, not to sound rude, but it's hard to take your opinion seriously when, due to the lack of a period, your post isn't even one sentence long. |
oniblade
Posts: 113/183 |
well the new paper mario was underrated, but its not as good as paper mario |
Colin
Posts: 4766/11302 |
I really doubt that companies throw around $50,000 to buy reviews.  Maybe in extreme cases but it's probably one of those "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" thing - for example, maybe if a magazine gives a game a good review, they might get an exclusive look at the sequel.  |
Apple
Posts: 461/594 |
I don't read reviews for the ratings.
If I see a game I'm interesting in, I'll read the review. If someone gives it a 3 of 10 and the review only seems to be bais against the camera angle or/and the graphics, I'll probably pick it up. |
MathOnNapkins
Posts: 708/2189 |
Be suspicious period. If you can buy off lots of reviewers with , say, $50,000 or so, and you can make $1,000,000 instead of $200,000, who wouldn't pay people off. I don't trust reviewers usually. If I'm going to buy a game i first go on Gamefaqs or some other site with ratings, and I find the lowest ratings possible. Chances are if they found the game that annoying, I might notice the same things.
Edit: What I meant was I'd go read their reviews and see what they found to be a problem with the game. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 1536/5458 |
Originally posted by Colin
Paper Mario actually did sell over a million copies despite being released near the end of the N64's run. Just wanted to throw that in. 
And it got good reviews everywhere. A 9.5 in EGM and Gamespot loved it. |
Colin
Posts: 4754/11302 |
Paper Mario actually did sell over a million copies despite being released near the end of the N64's run. Just wanted to throw that in. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 1534/5458 |
The demographic has shifted. Focusing on the 18+ categories will create more $$$ for any company.
That idea would've been beautiful, back when Nintendo was still king, because it worked. Sadly, due to shfiting times, those kids have grown up and fondly look at the good old days, but then buy X-Box or PS2 and play the new games. Marketing for kids brings in lots of money, yes, because Sony and Microsoft aren't touching those fields with a 4000000 foot pole with their ideas. Nintendo isn't going anywhere, they have kids cornered with their product. And face it, I've yet to meet a single kid who hates Mario  |
Grey the Stampede
Posts: 1132/3770 |
Well said, fellow. Here's an addendum:
Ratchet and Clank: Going Commando was indeed an excellent game. Perhaps it's the predecessors that do the successors justice? As I recall, the first Paper Mario game, despite being inventive and funny, did not get good reviews or reasonably good sales, which may have turned reviewers off from the sequel. Regardless, I have played both of the predecessors to these two contested games, and because of them I intend to play both of the successors. If you think the first game is good, you're expecting the second one to be just as good, if not better, right?
Well, I loved both Ratchet and Clank and Paper Mario. And Game Informer hated the first Paper Mario, but loved Ratchet and Clank: Going Commando. I want to play both of the new games, they wanted only to play Ratchet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal. That makes my point all the more boldened, right?
I stopped actually reading the reviews for Game Informer three years ago, when they started hating Megaman. I get it for the previews and the news section now, because I'm too lazy to check Gamespy or IGN or any of those other internet sources.
And I LIKED Conker's Bad Fur Day, it was the last good Rare game.
The fact is, Nintendo may not always make children's games, but they do exude a kiddie look, and I think they do it intentionally. Think about it! Nintendo won the hearts of older gamers in 1985, when those gamers were kids. They're playing for a new audience right now, they're playing for the youths of the world that are the offspring of the gamers of the 80s and 90s. Someday people are going to look back on Super Smash Brothers Melee with the fondness that we see in The Legend of Zelda and River City Ransom (well, that I see anyway, you're all entitled to your own opinions). There will be billions of sequels, and nobody will remember the old old games, claiming that PS2 and Gamecube are ancient systems, and shaking their heads in disbelief at the very mention of the Super Nintendo Entertainment System.
Pokemon will go through its Silicon and Lead versions, Conker's gonna get Liver Poisoning, Mario's gonna take up chain smoking, and a new generation of characters will run circles around Sonic the Hedgehog. All the while, other companies are going to be trying to make their characters accessible to older audiences, adding more and more blood while Nintendo makes a fortune off of children. It's genius. It's sheer marketing genius.
Nintendo literally holds the future of gaming in the palm of their hands, and they probably don't even know it yet. |
cpubasic13
Posts: 682/1346 |
You know why Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door got a 6? It is a Nintendo product, and to some people Nintendo makes kids games. Sure you have a character that is a plumber who eats mushrooms and stops reptiles, but the thing is that is fun. I have played Ratchet and Clank (the first one) and the thing that I liked about that game was its humor. The gameplay was fun at first, but then started to get repetitive... in my opinion, of course.
See, these reviewers think Nintendo just makes kids games because of Pokemon. Once that game was released, Nintendo has been getting a bad reputation. So Nintendo made a more kid oriented game? Big deal. They made money and the Pokemon series is an original idea that probably nobody could have thought of. Don't say Digimon because that was just a knock-off of Pokemon, just with Digi in the front.
PS2, in my opinion, is just a bunch of sequels after sequels after sequels. They think "If it ain't bad, why improve it?" X-Box wouldn't have even made it this far if it weren't for Halo. But why is Nintendo still making games? Because of two reasons: 1) They generally own the handheld gaming industry, and 2) They make games that are fun for not just one group of audiences, but for everyone. That is why people are biased against Nintendo games. They hate the fact that there are no ultra-realistic blood-spewing gun-blasting foul-mouthed games made by Nintendo (except Conker's Bad Fur Day... possibly Metroid Prime).
I have a Gamepro magazine that has a review of Star Wars Rogue Squadron III: Rebel Stike. I have seen really good reviews of this game but Gamepro brought down the rating because of the Gamecube controller. That is just stupid. Other games from Gamecube also had that same problem...
Paper Mario needs a better score. It is good, original, and different. Just because the graphics aren't realistic or it isn't gun shooting oriented doesn't mean it is bad. These reviewers need to review just that game, not compare it to other games. Sure it isn't Halo, but who gives a crap about that old game?*
Final Verdict: Game reviewers are biased. Most people turn their attention away from Nintendo games because of the characters, but without these characters, what characters would there be? Sonic would not exist if it weren't for Mario. Master Cheif wouldn't even be thought of without Samus. High-speed future racing games would not be made without F-ZERO. So are we better off without Nintendo? No. Without Nintendo, the gaming industry would not exist today and if it did, video games wouldn't be good.
Yes, I am biased. Who here isn't? Nobody. You will see biased people and opinions all the time. There is nothing you can do to stop it.
*I like Halo, yes, but it is old and if you are still thinking it is the best game ever, please do not review other games. You will just hate other games for this reason. |
Sofie
Posts: 1090/1210 |
I've never seen any other industry where free goodies mattered so much in something that should be fairly objective.
No need to convince me otherwise, I've given up on them unless they use pretty big pictures or give me stuff that's worth buying their magazine as toiletlecture. |
Colin
Posts: 4750/11302 |
...Don't assume, dear Sofie. It's pretty safe to say they ARE with a few exceptions.
For example, if a game was getting an average of 45% in most magazines and one gives it 80%... There's reason to be suspicious.  |
Sofie
Posts: 1085/1210 |
I'm assuming game magazine reviewers can be bought in your countries too.
I never buy gamemagazines, unless they have some kind of goodie I want coming along with it, because they'll give good reviews to companies that treat them good (mostly this concerns getting their review/preview copies before competing magazines get them).
Just get the game because you think it'll be good, and not because others think it's bad |
Colin
Posts: 4740/11302 |
Why dont you idiots go and play it?
1) Watch your tone.
2) Did you even check the release date for the game? |
The Guru of Furu
Posts: 93/240 |
Wow, never seen such rage on a forum like this about game reviews. Never played either game but people I know who've played Ratchet and Clank love the game. I haven't heard anything about the mario game but maybe it deserves a higher score. I usually agree with GI on most reviews, but there are certain reviewers that I don't really listen to. The thing you have to do with a mag like that is find a reviewer who has similar tastes as you. For me that is Reiner, and I haven't been upset by anygame that he has given a good review and I've agreed with every game he's given a bad review. GI is the only game mag I have anymore because it is probably the best for covering all the systems. And I agree with Gar, GI doesn't really seem to have a bias towards PS2, definately strong on the GBA and certain XBox titles. The reason a lot of people view them as PS2 bias is because of when they give the PS2 titles better scores because they offer the online features but are technically not as good as the XBox version with no online feature. N E ways, I'm surprised by the 10 ranking like most people just because GI never gives that rating for anygames. I think they've given like 2 other games that score and Ratchet and Clank just doesn't seem like the type of game that appeals to everyone, those are really the only games that I think deserve 10s, games where almost every gamer will like it. |
Cymoro
Posts: 1416/2216 |
Originally posted by Garmichael
As for everyone else who is trying to bash Ratchet and Clank: Have you actually played the game?
It isn't out yet.
Originally posted by Garmichael
Or did you close your little mind up as soon as you realised it was a platformer with animals and guns?
You're saying this to a community that worships a guy that eats mushrooms and fights lizards, and also has furries here. You're funny, you know that? |
Garmichael
Posts: 122/166 |
Originally posted by Cymoro
It's well-know that they're PS2 biased. So very biased. After I got that issue, I cancelled my subscription and got my money back. That was like a slap in the face, and I can get better reviews from OXM and Nintendo Power (For the two Next-Gen systems I have).
Also, their giving Katamari Damacy an 8 (if I remember right) really pissed me off. That deserved an 11.
you must be smokin crack, cuz i really dont notice Game Informer leaning to PS2 games. If anything, they seem more hyped about GBA and Xbox games.
As for everyone else who is trying to bash Ratchet and Clank: Have you actually played the game? Or did you close your little mind up as soon as you realised it was a platformer with animals and guns?
Why dont you idiots go and play it? |
Xeolord
Posts: 552/3418 |
Well, I never take ratings so literally, I just look at all the ratings, put them together, and use my common sense if the games good or not.
But if it's something like Metroid Prime 2, or Halo 2, I don't need ratings at all even if they give the games a 0 out of 10. |
Colin
Posts: 4734/11302 |
8/10's fair for Katamari Damacy I think. They're at least acknowledging the fact it's a good budget game.
The PM2 rating does surprise me because most of the reviews out there are in the 8.0-9.0 range; come on, you think Nintendo's going to screw up a guaranteed 1,000,000+ best seller? |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. |
|
