Topic: REVIEWS: Rage of the Gladiator

[Mop it up]

BTW, to the readers of this, Ghostfire Games is giving away free copies of Rage of the Gladiator.
Read more at: http://www.ghostfiregames.com/gladiator/want-a-free-copy-of-rage-of-the-gladiator/

Everyone who reads the front page already knows this.

Which means nobody here knew it.

[BlackNMild2k1]

BTW, to the readers of this, Ghostfire Games is giving away free copies of Rage of the Gladiator.
Read more at: http://www.ghostfiregames.com/gladiator/want-a-free-copy-of-rage-of-the-gladiator/

Everyone who reads the front page already knows this.

Which means nobody here knew it.

Except for the fact that it was already Talkback(in the forums) since around 4pm this afternoon (PST)
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/forums/index.php?topic=31045.0

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Opinions are incorrect.

You heard it here, first.

[NWR_pap64]

coffeewithgames: What if Neal truly played the game to the fullest enough to write the most detailed review ever created by man and STILL didn't like it? What is your argument then? That he was biased towards Punch-Out in order to give it a fair review? That he doesn't have the right mind set to enjoy a game as magnificent as Rage of the Gladiator? Most importantly, what if the review was very glowing and was still inaccurate? Would you raise a stink over those minor details or would you ignore that since what matters is that the review matches your mindset?

Seriously, dude, you have been warned. Reviews are first and foremost opinion pieces. Yes, its important to be as detailed as possible so the information is accurate. That I will agree with. But if the reviewer had a sour experience with the game he has the right to express it, despite what everyone else is saying about it.

We have no problem with readers putting their two cents in and offering a different opinion. The problem here is that Neal has explained to you why he didn't like the game and offered you his honest opinion and you still see fit in claiming that his review is wrong, all under the basis that you enjoyed it far more than he did.

[coffeewithgames]

coffeewithgames: What if Neal truly played the game to the fullest enough to write the most detailed review ever created by man and STILL didn't like it? What is your argument then? That he was biased towards Punch-Out in order to give it a fair review? That he doesn't have the right mind set to enjoy a game as magnificent as Rage of the Gladiator? Most importantly, what if the review was very glowing and was still inaccurate? Would you raise a stink over those minor details or would you ignore that since what matters is that the review matches your mindset?

Well, I've commented on nearly every single Rage of the Gladiator review, I don't think the review scores are what matters to me.
That's why I started my first comment with, "/sigh", because I was doing it all over again with the same question.
I've asked the question, "Did you finish Challenge Mode", in at least three other reviews that I know of.
Again, I'm not saying, he can't say he doesn't like the game, I never said that.
If he had finished Challenge Mode and still wrote this review with a score of 10, I probably still would have mentioned the motion controls could be adjusted.


I'm just pointing out some things, that didn't make sense to me, and he even went back and adjusted one thing in the review that I pointed out.
So again, I'm not here, trying to bash him or the review, just to point out some more things that people may like about the game if they're on the fence and didn't see it in his review originally.

Seriously, dude, you have been warned. Reviews are first and foremost opinion pieces. Yes, its important to be as detailed as possible so the information is accurate. That I will agree with. But if the reviewer had a sour experience with the game he has the right to express it, despite what everyone else is saying about it.

We have no problem with readers putting their two cents in and offering a different opinion. The problem here is that Neal has explained to you why he didn't like the game and offered you his honest opinion and you still see fit in claiming that his review is wrong, all under the basis that you enjoyed it far more than he did.

I don't think I ever typed, "Your review is wrong!" and just left it as that.
I also didn't say it was wrong simply because, I "enjoyed it far more than he did."
I stated a few times that things were "incorrect", but I would show why they were incorrect.
Neal even said at one point, "I corrected your point about getting more skill points by getting higher grades. Thanks for pointing that out."


If I was in here yelling, screaming, and flaming, I could understand it being an issue, but I think we've had a pretty civil discussion so far.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

You called an opinion incorrect.  That's laffable.  An opinion/argument can be poorly formed or invalid or the author can be factually incorrect, but you ran out the starting gates with a poor choice of words.

[coffeewithgames]

You called an opinion incorrect.  That's laffable.  An opinion/argument can be poorly formed or invalid or the author can be factually incorrect, but you ran out the starting gates with a poor choice of words.

I never simply stated, "Your opinion is incorrect" and left it like that.


I think the reference you're referring to is,
"On lastability:I think your opinion on the game's "lastability" is incorrect, because you didn't finish the game's Challenge Mode."


I guess the proper way would have been, "I think your reasons for scoring the game's lastability are incorrect because of XYZ"?
Or, "Your opinion is poorly formed and invalid"?

[ejamer]

Wow, fire in the forums!   


People might disagree with their opinions, but it impresses me is that people are passionate enough to argue over the game.  That's gotta be a good sign, right?


Personally I liked Rage of the Gladiator much more than Neal seems to.  It isn't the best game ever and didn't exactly fit my expectations going in, but surprised me by being tremendous fun.  Is it better than Punch-Out!! on Wii?  No, I don't think so.  But it's cheaper and easier to buy, has some great modifications like the skill tree advancements, and definitely isn't lacking in challenge or entertainment value.  In fact, Rage of the Gladiator is clearly my second favorite WiiWare release this year, only outdone by Cave Story.  (Others are more than welcome to disagree with that opinion.)


Also, I want to defend Neal for reviewing the game without finishing it.  I have never finished any game in the Punch-Out!! series because the difficulty and reflexes required to beat high-level bosses simply are too much for me.  But I don't think that invalidates my opinions about the games.  Of course, it's hard to fairly rate "lastability" when the game hasn't even been finished once... but only if you define that word to mean how long it takes to finish the game instead of how long it takes to lose interest.


Anyway... my point.  Did I have one?  Oh right!  I think that Rage of the Gladiator is awesome, and was the best 1000 Wii Points I've spent in a long time.  Hopefully people interested in a game that takes heavy inspiration from a long-standing classic are willing to give this game a shot.  It really deserves to be played.
 

[NWR_Neal]

ejamer - I totally get everything you said. Specifically this:

Is it better than Punch-Out!! on Wii?  No, I don't think so.  But it's cheaper and easier to buy, has some great modifications like the skill tree advancements, and definitely isn't lacking in challenge or entertainment value.

I still don't like this as much as you (I think it'd fit right behind Blaster Master at the four or five spot for WiiWare games of 2010, but there's also only been three months of releases in 2010), but that really hits the nail on the head with a lot of my feelings about the game, though with less bravado.