Post by: Chris1 on November 13, 2006, 05:44:43 PM
and Trauma Center here Trauma Center Second Opinion
Post by: 18 Days on November 13, 2006, 05:54:19 PM
Quotelongtime fan? "Oh man I've been a fan of Trauma Center since January"
Second Opinion is definitely a game that's worth playing, whether you're totally new to the series or a longtime fan.
series? there's one game, and then they remade it, SERIES
Post by: wandering on November 13, 2006, 05:56:12 PM
edit: Hey, 10 months is a long time in internet land.
(Yeah, the reviews aren't the best...but it's ign. What can you do?)
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 13, 2006, 05:57:32 PM
IS THIS SOME SORT OF TRIKC?
DID EGM WRITE THIS?
What a load of phayle. We're increasing their traffic with absolutely no benefit to us, the readers.
Post by: Mario on November 13, 2006, 06:00:35 PM
Quote
6.0 Sound
The musical composition is beautiful, but the game needed more VO work
LOL
As far as the facts go, these games have come out pretty much as expected. Good news.
Post by: zakkiel on November 13, 2006, 06:07:43 PM
Post by: wandering on November 13, 2006, 06:07:47 PM
Quote
As far as the facts go, these games have come out pretty much as expected. Good news.
Right. I was afraid Trauma Center's controls would sound good on paper, but be awkward in practice (like certain console-to-DS ports). But it appears this is not the case. My purchase is now assured, and for that, I must give ign my thanks.
Post by: King of Twitch on November 13, 2006, 09:34:04 PM
Post by: Strell on November 13, 2006, 09:44:23 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: zakkiel
Good lord, what is it with IGN and voice acting? I'mn desperately trying to think of a videogame where voice acting a)existed and b) did not suck. Why would you want more of it?
Sam 'n Max
Day of the Tentacle
Loom
I'm sure there's at least a few others.
Post by: Smash_Brother on November 13, 2006, 09:45:52 PM
Full Throttle
MGS
Eternal Darkness
Still not enough to justify demanding that all games have it, though.
Post by: Myxtika1 Azn on November 13, 2006, 10:32:26 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 13, 2006, 10:49:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: StrellQuote
Originally posted by: zakkiel
Good lord, what is it with IGN and voice acting? I'mn desperately trying to think of a videogame where voice acting a)existed and b) did not suck. Why would you want more of it?
Sam 'n Max
Day of the Tentacle
Loom
I'm sure there's at least a few others.
Resident Evil 1 has the best voice acting ever.
Post by: Nephilim on November 13, 2006, 11:40:47 PM
I dont believe it deserves 8/10, 7 is about right
Post by: Spak-Spang on November 14, 2006, 03:00:57 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 14, 2006, 03:21:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Myxtika1 Azn
I want to chime in with Dragon Quest VIII. That has some extremely awesome voice acting.
Ahahaha, I just started playing DQVIII a few days ago and I have to STRONGLY disagree...*shudder*
Post by: Ceric on November 14, 2006, 03:39:24 AM
Post by: Rhoq on November 14, 2006, 03:44:20 AM
The only thing I truly hate about the reviews, and quite honestly Matt should know better - is the criticism about the graphics looking "last-gen". Really? You've been telling us for a year now not to expect much more than what the first XBox was capable of in terms of graphics. Why complain about it now? That just doesn't make any sense to me.
They're reviewing Wii games and comparing the graphics in terms of what the XBox 360 and PS3 are outputting instead of basing it off what the Wii is actually capable of delivering. The sad thing is, I don't think this mentality will be limited to IGN. Most reviewers are not going to be fair to the Wii because they've been spoiled by "next-gen" graphics for the last year now. It's unfortunate but I guess this might change, in due time. Kind of like how in the beginning the DS was being compared to the PSP until reviewers learned to rate DS titles on their own merits and not the limitations of the system itself.
Post by: Rhoq on November 14, 2006, 03:49:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
I think the voice acting thing is not a reason to knock the sound score unless it is bad. Not having more is a style thing. Personally I prefer Text and non-words. Like when link grunts when pushing a brick. Just showing that the character isn't a mute. Text lets me breath my own personality in it and I don't have to have someone elses voice in my head. (One of the reasons I prefer Manga as a medium but, I actually like Anime more because the story is normally not as Serious and they tend to explore the interesting cast better. (Good example Love Hina.))
In the case of Trauma Center, I sort of agree with that part of the review. The DS game has a lot of text and, quite honestly, reading it becomes a chore after a while because it seems like it never ends. The only reason not to include voice acting was probably because they couldn't have the game ready for launch if they added it. This type of game could actually be enhanced by strong voice acting. It can add some seriously tense, dramatic moments - much better than text can or will.
Post by: Spak-Spang on November 14, 2006, 03:53:28 AM
I love Anime because it is animated and just beautiful, BUT the American voice acting in almost all anime is so bad that I can't watch it. It destorys the experience.
Video Games have just as poor or worse voice acting than anime...and as such I would rather it not exist...just like I perfer to READ subtitles so that the voice acting doesn't ruin the experience.
To knock points off for sound is stupid.
But if you remember Matt has stated he is trying to take a proactive position with reviews and previews actually critizing things he feels needs to be updated or changed for making the game better.
(I do not know if this is really appropriate or his place as a report and reviewer, but whatever.)
I think both of these reviews are fair, but they do have that sense of I am telling Nintendo what I want in a game and not just reviewing the game at hand.
Why else would he continually attack Wii Sports for graphics, when it doesn't look bad. It is just a highly stylized game that chooses to go with a simple art style...not horrible graphics.
Post by: Ceric on November 14, 2006, 03:57:21 AM
Post by: Rhoq on November 14, 2006, 04:01:24 AM
I agree with you about Phoenix Wright. I would also like to see Capcom attempt to bring that series to the Wii. Not a Wii-make like Atlus' TC:SO, but a true sequel.
Post by: trip1eX on November 14, 2006, 04:13:37 AM
Post by: Ceric on November 14, 2006, 04:15:36 AM
Post by: trip1eX on November 14, 2006, 04:21:39 AM
And how many times do we have to read that each WiiSports game isn't a full-fledged virtua tennis or Tiger Woods golf or Fight Night 3? Most of the review is spent explaing that the graphics aren't as good and that each game isn't a full-fledged game. IT's like reviewing a TV show and each time saying that the show doesn't have the production values of a motion picture or isn't as long and epic as a movie.
One thing I'm going to get sick of quick is reviews taking 2 paragraphs each time to remind us that the graphics in Wii games aren't as good as 360 ones.
Post by: couchmonkey on November 14, 2006, 05:21:35 AM
I'm not surprised Wii Sports is getting slightly low scores. The game does appear to be fairly simple, but I think it will attract some people just like Luigi's Mansion attracted some people and I think improved games based on similar concepts will be coming out over the next few years.
Post by: xanrastafari on November 14, 2006, 05:35:02 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on November 14, 2006, 05:48:51 AM
Post by: nitsu niflheim on November 14, 2006, 05:53:14 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill AurionQuote
Originally posted by: Myxtika1 Azn
I want to chime in with Dragon Quest VIII. That has some extremely awesome voice acting.
Ahahaha, I just started playing DQVIII a few days ago and I have to STRONGLY disagree...*shudder*
stop playing now, if you don't like the voice work then you just won't appreciate the entire game. ;_;
<3
I think DQ8 has some of the best voice work ever in a game.
Post by: zakkiel on November 14, 2006, 06:52:25 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on November 14, 2006, 07:40:53 AM
The only time you should really grade what isn't there is if previous games in the series had a feature or something was removed during localization or porting from one platform to another. If you can say "hey this WAS here and you removed it" then you criticize. But "I would have made the game differently" isn't what a review should focus on (unless it's "I wouldn't have made this game hurt my hand to control.")
Post by: ShyGuy on November 14, 2006, 08:21:30 AM
Post by: King of Twitch on November 14, 2006, 08:51:01 AM
...
the bad: no hard drive; not high-definition capable; moving the controller could get tiring
Best for: Casual and nontraditional gamers and those looking for simpler fun.
impressions: This machine is technologically inferior to its competitors but is just as-if not more-fun to play. The interactivity of the remote is brilliant and is a welcome change that will surely attract people who don't think they like or can play video games.
I loled at one of the PS3 pros: "capable of 1.8 trillion calculations a second"
It's odd that I haven't really heard any phrases involving polygon numbers, "fill rates," or "compression/texturing techniques" thrown around this gen. What's with that?
Post by: KnowsNothing on November 14, 2006, 09:19:44 AM
Post by: decoyman on November 14, 2006, 11:00:57 AM
Wow, I just said "horrid."
Ian, responding to your comment that games that don't historically have something shouldn't be criticized for not adding it, I would disagree. With Twilight Princess putting such an emphasis on story (as many people are saying), more emphasis should be put on HOW that story is told. Done well, voice acting is a great way to add emotion and depth to a story. If they don't want Link to talk, that's fine, but why not the NPCs?. It's strange seeing such polish put on virtually every aspect of the game, and this part being ignored. The technology is there; I don't understand their excuses.
DISCLAIMER: I will still buy TP at launch and freaking love it. I'm just confused about their reasoning for excluding this potentially impressive feature this time.
Post by: zakkiel on November 14, 2006, 11:15:32 AM
QuoteBecause an army of Zelda fans would march on Tokyo and raze Nintendo to the ground. And I would be at their head.
Ian, responding to your comment that games that don't historically have something shouldn't be criticized for not adding it, I would disagree. With Twilight Princess putting such an emphasis on story (as many people are saying), more emphasis should be put on HOW that story is told. Done well, voice acting is a great way to add emotion and depth to a story. If they don't want Link to talk, that's fine, but why not the NPCs?. It's strange seeing such polish put on virtually every aspect of the game, and this part being ignored. The technology is there; I don't understand their excuses.
The lack of voice acting in Zelda is either something you understand to be necessary to the core of your being, or you don't. If you don't, you're prone to babble about how voice acting is more "polished" a mode of presentation than text, and similar foolishness.
Post by: decoyman on November 14, 2006, 11:25:37 AM
Besides, I'd accept it if Link didn't talk, because "you're the player! how can someone else be talking for youLOL!!" But why not everyone else? YOUR ARGUMENT FAILS, ZAKKIEL.
But go ahead. Try again. I'm a reasonable, open-minded fellow. If you give me a valid reason, I'll agree with you.
Your move.
Post by: Hostile Creation on November 14, 2006, 11:29:15 AM
Edit:
I posted that before seeing decoyman's post, but it basically applies to what he said. Well, decoyman, I'm an English and Communications double major, so maybe I know a thing or two about communication and interpretation. I can give you more evidence to support my claim if you want. I'll drive you into the ground with reasons for Zelda to not have voice acting.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 14, 2006, 11:34:11 AM
It's clear that Nintendo doesn't want it to have voices and I'd wager the majority of Zelda fans want the game to remain voiceless. So what is a reviewer like Matt to do? Lower the score each time? I can understand pointing it out once but after that he should either live with it or have someone else review Zelda games if this small thing so greatly affects his enjoyment of the game. The purpose of a review is to let people know if the game is worth buying or not. At some point endless ranting about no voice acting is going to prohibit the review from being useful. Fans will get no indication of whether or not a Zelda game is worth their time if the reviewer is too busy addressing something that either was never an issue to them or something they've come to deal with.
To me it's like complaining in Final Fantasy reviews about random battles or in Madden reviews about how it's the same game every year. Obviously for those that buy those games that doesn't matter to them so for the review to be useful someone that has more similar tastes to them should write the review.
Plus Matt complains about the lack of voice acting in every Nintendo game. Is he an unbiased reviewer or just some wannabe developer dictating how everything would be done if he was in charge? Some people would probably accuse me of the same thing but I'm just writing on a forum for fun. I'm not getting paid.
Edit: I'll give my reason why I personally don't want voice acting in Zelda: Mario's voice. The second I heard that horrible goofy clown voice I wanted to vomit and my interest in Mario has never been the same. When I play a Mario game today I sometimes feel I have to force myself to stomach little kid bullsh!t to get to the precious gameplay. The last thing I want is for Link to open his mouth and have this unbelievably horrible voice come out and totally ruin the Zelda feeling for me. I still like Mario and most Mario games are really good but there isn't a tight relationship anymore if you get what I mean. I'm in tune with Zelda. It's like a part of my life. I fear that lousy voice acting could ruin that because once Mario talked the series went in a direction that I couldn't really identify with.
Post by: Kairon on November 14, 2006, 11:51:27 AM
Nevertheless, I can see myself turned into a raving lunatic when they review Zelda:TP.
The real weird thing is that reading the Trauma Center review, I couldn't find any points to justify the 8.0 overall score. The review was almost entirely positive throughout, with not enough emphasis given to any flaws that would've justified the lower score. By the time I finished reading it, I was almost certain it would've gotten a high 8.7 or something.
Oh, and ... *projects negative feelings in Decoyman's general direction*
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 14, 2006, 12:04:41 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
The numbers and the text don't match up.
IS THIS SOME SORT OF TRIKC?
DID EGM WRITE THIS?
What a load of phayle. We're increasing their traffic with absolutely no benefit to us, the readers.
Good argument.
Post by: decoyman on November 14, 2006, 12:10:26 PM
In a book, the written word is your whole universe. I mean, it's all you have to go by. A good book will allow your imagination to craft a scene without distraction on its own, using the words as building blocks. Text, with the aid of your imagination, serves a very distinct purpose in a book: create the world, listing everything that is important or pertinent, and let your readers' minds fill in the gaps.
It's a bit different in a video game world, because they're already giving you two different inputs (or more). In other words, there's a very distinct disconnect when going from text to audiovisual cues and vice versa. Imagine you're romping through a hillside, hearing birds chirping, hacking away the grass, watching the sun go down in the distance and nighttime set in, all with realistic physics and a timeframe outside of your own actions. They're recreating life in front of you. You walk up to a man on the outside of town, and a text box appears out of thin air. Immediately, the immersion is broken. You look down to the bottom of the screen (thus unable to take in any of his nonverbal cues he may be using to complement his speech, the tone of his voice, etc.), read his dialogue, the bubble disappears, and you're back in the "real world" chasing chickens and jumping from rooftop to rooftop.
I haven't even touched on the fact that the only text you read in a video game is meant to be dialogue (whether spoken by a person or a tablet or a sign – perhaps "communication" is a better word), because all the other text that a book would have is replaced by references the game's graphics and sound give you. Book/Video game = not a fair comparison.
Why not remove the last block to total immersion, since that's what they're going for anyways?
P.S. - Hostile, I was an English minor in school, so consider your challenge accepted
EDIT: Deflects Kairon's negative energy into a nearby tree, which explodes into a splintered mass of tree matter. "Whoa, watch where you're aiming that thing."
Post by: Donutt007 on November 14, 2006, 12:25:02 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: decoyman
Ian, responding to your comment that games that don't historically have something shouldn't be criticized for not adding it, I would disagree. With Twilight Princess putting such an emphasis on story (as many people are saying), more emphasis should be put on HOW that story is told. Done well, voice acting is a great way to add emotion and depth to a story. If they don't want Link to talk, that's fine, but why not the NPCs?. It's strange seeing such polish put on virtually every aspect of the game, and this part being ignored. The technology is there; I don't understand their excuses.
DISCLAIMER: I will still buy TP at launch and freaking love it. I'm just confused about their reasoning for excluding this potentially impressive feature this time.
All I have to say is that you saw the uproar when Link was not a lefty....think what would happen if there were people talking in the game.
Post by: Rhoq on November 14, 2006, 01:23:10 PM
The thing that really irks me is in the "Graphics" portion of the score box. Matt felt it necessary to write "Crisp, clean, colorful cel-shaded visuals are a natural fit for the franchise. Runs at 60 frames in pro-scan and 16:9 widescreen. Still, the graphics are very simple."
In the review he praised the new cell-shaded stylized look, WTF?
Besides that - the review was a pretty decent read. Read it HERE.
Post by: Luigi Dude on November 14, 2006, 01:29:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Donutt007
All I have to say is that you saw the uproar when Link was not a lefty....think what would happen if there were people talking in the game.
This is what would happen.
Post by: zakkiel on November 14, 2006, 01:55:15 PM
QuoteThis would have more punch if I'd made an argument.
YOUR ARGUMENT FAILS, ZAKKIEL.
Post by: Kairon on November 14, 2006, 01:56:50 PM
Think of how much bad acting makes otherwise decent movies unwatchable, then imagine having that sense of repulsion while made to actively play a game and be an agent of subjecting yourself to what makes you want to walk out the theatre.
Since videogames are interactive, and since they require our agency to move forward, you'd have intense cognitive dissonance when you yourself are are causing your own the torment.
In other words, NO VOICE ACTING IN ZELDA.
... Unless the voice acting is perfect and overseen by Pixar.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: decoyman on November 14, 2006, 02:43:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: zakkielQuoteThis would have more punch if I'd made an argument.
YOUR ARGUMENT FAILS, ZAKKIEL.
Blast!
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
... Unless the voice acting is perfect and overseen by Pixar.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Well, I don't know about Pixar, but I... I'll agree to this little compromise. You've got yourself a deal, Kairon!
Back on topic, yay Zelda!
Oops, back on topic, IGN reviews games?
Post by: Kairon on November 14, 2006, 03:06:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: decoyman
Oops, back on topic, IGN reviews games?
Ouch, low blow!
Yeah, these IGN reviews are exciting to read, but... maybe they're just making sure they've got ceiling room for Zelda?
Who knows, Matt says he's re-examining the way his sectionr reviews games, so maybe he'll break from IGN tradition and Wii review scores will actually start to mean something?
... or maybe it'll be a noble experiment that'll be shot down in 2 months.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: The Traveller on November 14, 2006, 03:32:10 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on November 14, 2006, 03:48:04 PM
If Nintendo does pull off good voice acting, I'd like to see how it affected Zelda. It could be really good. . . so long as Link doesn't talk
Post by: Edfishy on November 14, 2006, 03:54:15 PM
I personally prefer text though.
Post by: Renny on November 14, 2006, 04:49:15 PM
"How about a... nice massage?"
"That would be divine."
Lol the homoscientists. The writing was exceptional, of course. But it would've fallen flat without the VA talent. Fox could've been big in the games industry with original IP. Stupid Fox.
On topic: I haven't considered an IGN review since Monkey Ball 2. Eat my codpiece, Matt Assamassina.
Post by: Chris1 on November 14, 2006, 09:37:33 PM
Post by: Mario on November 14, 2006, 10:24:18 PM
No comparison to Red Steel I see, best FPS at launch? After all the effort Ubisoft has put towards that (and tweaking controls based on the stupid medias suggestions) it's about to get reamed by them. GOOD JOB!
Call of Duty Wii does seem pretty solid though.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 14, 2006, 11:58:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
So they've basically just admitted they value graphics > gameplay now. Good job.
No comparison to Red Steel I see, best FPS at launch? After all the effort Ubisoft has put towards that (and tweaking controls based on the stupid medias suggestions) it's about to get reamed by them. GOOD JOB!
Call of Duty Wii does seem pretty solid though.
I didn't even catch that, you mean the end where they talk about using it to show off the FPS genre? Perhaps that was just a slip up on his part
Post by: Mario on November 15, 2006, 12:21:52 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 15, 2006, 12:45:33 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
Yeah they also made a dig at Red Steel in the Monkey Ball review, calling the FPS minigame superior.
Well they said it had tighter and more responsive controls, the game could still get a good score only hampered by controls.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 15, 2006, 01:35:32 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KaironQuote
Originally posted by: decoyman
Oops, back on topic, IGN reviews games?
Ouch, low blow!
Yeah, these IGN reviews are exciting to read, but... maybe they're just making sure they've got ceiling room for Zelda?
Who knows, Matt says he's re-examining the way his sectionr reviews games, so maybe he'll break from IGN tradition and Wii review scores will actually start to mean something?
... or maybe it'll be a noble experiment that'll be shot down in 2 months.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
There's a very intriguing possibility there. At the moment, the score numbers and the review comments ("solid" "great" and all that other manufactured reviewing language garbage) we're used to correlating in the past AREN'T adding up at all in these Wii reviews we see from them. By default, I can attribute this to IGN's general WEAKNESS and deterioration due to being priveledged members of gaming's high society for so long. But I can agree there could be a deeper explanation, one that will hurt Wii's general hype machine but at the same time is trying to bring attention and clarity to the review system they've supposedly had "all this time."
I noticed lots of 7's and 6's. Is Matt & Co being harsh? Ye-- NO, actually. Cuz you notice something under the overall review score that's been there for quite a while, a single word descriptor like "Good" or "Impressive", and it's all documented in the Rating Guide page. Matt is probably making a new effort to conform to the review system (that he probably helped create) and is trying to re-educate the audience on how the scores are to be interpretted (lol, good luck internets).
The problem is with the INTERNET. The general vibe I'm getting is a game aspect is ONLY GOOD at a minimum score of 9/10. 8's automatically brings it down to "iffy" land, and 7's and below are automatically NOT GOOD. When you come across a gamer's buying habits that fall in line with "i don't have a lot of time or money for games, so I'll only get good games [by good i mean 9's and up, aka the best]" then you can get an idea where the attitudes grew from. But in IGN land, a "7" REALLY IS SUPPOSED TO TRANSLATE TO "Good", as in it's "positively competent and play-worthy, and manages to excel in some areas", and Matt is probably trying to get that point across. Maybe people have focused on TOO many 8's and 9's and 10's that they don't have a feel for what a 7 (Good) is supposed to mean (I know what 7 is. The most awesome 7 evar is Killer 7 on GameCube). If there are so many 9's and 10's and so on, future 9's and 10's must clearly be able to differentiate itself from the preceding competition, otherwise 9 becomes the new "average" and a 10 is a 9 with a voice-acted online multiplayer cherry on top. Get real.
The highest of scores are supposed to be reserved for tites that stand head and shoulders above its competition, and we're probably not going to escape the reality that inflated 9's and 10's are easily handed out. But lower scores should definitely not be overlooked. A game can automatically gain favor when one deems the shortcomings to be negligible, cuz that's a matter of taste. (whether they have bad taste is a different matter).
So, some of the IGN review numbers probably are justified, though the borked comments still exist. So they say they have reviewed some "good" games already, and they describe them with 7's and 8's, which brings us back to ZELDA... If they know what 7 and 8 are, they should know what 9 and 10 are. Yeah, ZELDA is probably ALREADY the CEILING, standing above the other launch games, compressing their review scores under the weight of Zelda's fat ass of excellence. The "lesser" games are still good games (the reviews are positive, afterall), but they have the simple MISFORTUNE of launching alongside the BIGGEST FOCKING ZELDA GAME TO DATE. The grading curve was not skewed in their favor.
So, thanks to Zelda, we can expect Wii game review scores to be squished across the board untill 2007's heavyweights come out. In the meantime, don't automatically dismiss a game due to low scores. Just dismiss the reviewer and the establishment. The best reviewer is one's self. If not, I'm the next best thing. Word.
Post by: Nick DiMola on November 15, 2006, 02:15:10 AM
They did however, give the new Monkey Ball an Editor's Choice award when it wasn't at the 9.0 level, which is fantastic. People need to look for these little things in the reviews because they most certainly make a difference. I think the same happened with Chibi Robo.
Post by: Mario on November 15, 2006, 02:25:22 AM
Another big problem is people making comparisons, for example they'll see Tony Hawks Underground GC which was pretty average that got 9.2, and compare it to Downhill Jams inevitably lower score and dismiss this new one as crap. I wonder if Madden Wii is going to get 9.5 or whatever all the other ones got? If it doesn't, then people will assume the Wii controller brings it down, no matter what the review text says. Then again if it does it'll make all the other games look pretty crap to get much lower scores than Madden. IN CONCLUSION THERE SHOULD BE NO NUMBER SCORING SYSTEM. It's IMPOSSIBLE for them to be consistant, and people should just buy what they like, because they'll most likely like it!
Soon people will be reviewing reviews.
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on November 15, 2006, 03:37:16 AM
here are their pros and cons
The Good: Good sense of speed; hectic gameplay makes you feel just shy of losing control of the truck.
The Bad: Not enough here to keep you interested for long; should have been at least a four-player game, if not online.
So I guess on the good side is that its fun with good gameplay but its not deep enough. I sort of agree that it should be 4 player since 4 wii remotes is easier than 4 remotes + nunchuks.
Post by: Hostile Creation on November 15, 2006, 04:11:05 AM
In other news, Gamespot is lame because EXCITE TRUCK clearly is a game that surpasses mere goodness, and excels into a realm of divine glory where one cannot assign a value.
So, not knowing what to do, they gave it a 6.8
Post by: couchmonkey on November 15, 2006, 04:24:05 AM
Graphics - I think they're focusing too much on graphics. I will admit that very few of the launch games appear to be pushing the limits of even the GameCube, but I'm still seeing too many comparisons to Xbox 360 and PS3. That's invalid since the system simply isn't designed to be that powerful. I think this issue will stop coming up in reviews after a few months go by and expectations wear off.
Scores - Matt gave everyone a peek inside his brain when he mentioned in his blog how proud he was of the score IGN gave to Luigi's Mansion. I think Matt considers it a big deal to be critical of launch games so that there's room for growth...if you score Luigi's Mansion 9/10, then what score does Super Mario Sunshine deserve? I also agree with Pro's suggestion that he might be trying to bring game scores back to "reality".
Unfortunately I'm not sure the other IGN channels are onboard with that type of thinking. Does the original Halo still deserve a 95.7% score (according to GameRankings)? Not bloody likely.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 15, 2006, 07:20:48 AM
ExciteTruck isn't? I just assumed that being a multiplayer Nintendo game it was four players. Hell, I would dock points for that too. If every Nintendo multiplayer game since 1997 is four players than ExciteTruck should be as well.
Regarding scores I like having a numbered score because I honestly don't feel like reading every review to find out if a game is worth my time. A score gives you an idea and then you can read from there if you want. If a game gets a 3 I don't need to read the damn review to know the game is sh!t and I shouldn't buy it. I think some sites overrate some games (IGN Xbox *cough*) but in general I think the scores are pretty good. A 7 game usually isn't worth my time. Why should I bother with stuff that is merely decent when I can get something great for the same price. This isn't just with gaming. I apply this attitude to all entertainment. I only have so much money and so much time. I've noticed this "review scores don't mean anything" attitude became popular around here when the Cube release list dried up and only like one game every few months came out. Numerous games got overrated because we had nothing to play so thus something that would otherwise be ignored got a lot of praise because compared to playing nothing it was pretty fun. No one seems to care when decent-to-good games on other consoles get 7's.
Post by: Kairon on November 15, 2006, 07:23:51 AM
BTW Ian, I agree that review scores are useful but ONLY if they're consistent. When someone scores Pokemon Gold and Silver 9.somethings and I got bored of those games 10 hours in, then I learn to distrust review scores because they're not consistent with my experiences. In this case, IGN Wii may be scoring games on a different scale than IGN in general and since consistency is lost, scores can't be compared cross-system even though they inevitably will be.
Reading Comprehension > Review Scores.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Artimus on November 15, 2006, 09:00:32 AM
Post by: KnowsNothing on November 15, 2006, 09:02:28 AM
It should also be online =(
Post by: vudu on November 15, 2006, 09:15:58 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 15, 2006, 09:17:25 AM
I originally refrained from mentioning Ian when I wrote that, but he was who I had in mind and he apparently popped into the thread and is giving my statement some weight. I'm not attacking the guy, he just turned out to be the obvious example.
"A 7 game usually isn't worth my time. Why should I bother with stuff that is merely decent when I can get something great for the same price."
I wonder what it takes for a "7" game to be worth one's time. It looks like that 7 game will NEVER get a chance at being worthy since it's already been dismissed. This is the big problem -- people automatically believe the reviewers' tastes automatically fall in line with their own? What a tragedy. WELL THEN, I guess StarFox Adventures deserves it's IGN "9" and maybe Wave Race: Blue Storm deserves Gamespot's "8" and not IGN's "9"? Consistency is indeed lost and we (i'm assuming we're veteran gamers) can't rely on their judgement. Last I checked, they get games for free while it's our responsibility to buy a game and feel cheated/ripped off and ultimately determine value in the real world. And it's not hard to find gamers who disagree with some high scores, yet readily accept the low scores. WTF? GAMERS ARE WARPED AS WELL. (lol internets)
On the subject of opinion itself, when gamers only seem to play/buy 9's and 10's (only AFTER seeing the reviews; basically zero risk-taking or no desire to support nurture unpolished potential), how credible is their word when they automatically limit the breadth of their experience? I understand that budget is a limiting factor, but judgements on "lower rated games" rooted in severely limited experience (the 9-10 gamer) should not be thrown around like they matter -- that's a sealed, empty can of Coke: No substance, and only good "for show".
Post by: Rhoq on November 15, 2006, 09:27:42 AM
Post by: trip1eX on November 15, 2006, 09:45:16 AM
Post by: Kairon on November 15, 2006, 09:46:21 AM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Nick DiMola on November 15, 2006, 10:13:47 AM
The 10 point system has been obsoleted by these game reviewing douches like Jeff Gerstman over at gamespot. The simple questions I want answers to are always overlooked. Seriously the only site I ever trust on reviews is this one. I am a Nintendo fan and I happen to like the style of Nintendo games. When I read a review I want a Nintendo fan telling me what they think without the taint of negative bias. All I know is that Excite Truck, for instance, was a ton of fun to play. I want that experience again, and I want to be able to access whenever I want. As a result I will be purchasing the game. Just because I'm not playing with another person doesn't mean I can't play it over and over and still enjoy it. Either way, I am sure most Wii games will be a ton of fun to play and I'm guessing most reviewers will crap all over them for ridiculous reasons. Some auto score generator shouldn't decide the final number score of a game. Use your brain instead of a formula, there is more to reviewing than numbers.
Sorry guys, I needed to rant. Low scores on good games piss me off. Especially when reviewers turn around and give crappy games great scores for stupid reasons.
Post by: wandering on November 15, 2006, 10:20:29 AM
Quote
I only have so much money and so much time. I've noticed this "review scores don't mean anything" attitude became popular around here when the Cube release list dried up and only like one game every few months came out.
My "review scores don't mean anything" attitude has always been there, because reviewers have always been morons. Two of my favorite films are A Knight's Tale and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas If I had listened to the reviews like you do, I never would have seen them. Game reviews are even worse, because game reviewers tend to have radically different tastes than me.
Letting an arbitrary numerical value assigned by people like this inform your purchasing decisions is stupid. You have to actually read the review to find out if the reviewers concerns sound valid. There are people out there, for example, who really like God Hand. You might be one of them, but since you don't even read the reviews for games that score that low, I guess you'll never know.
That's not to say the Nintendo community doesn't overrate games. I didn't really care for Star Fox Command, or Chibi Robo. But that doesn't validate your notion that ign's opinions on games are always objectively accurate, it's review scores handed down by God to be believed by all but the sacred-golden-mario-worshiping unbelievers.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 15, 2006, 10:22:44 AM
Post by: SixthAngel on November 15, 2006, 10:24:26 AM
I think game sites should start doing a two thumbs up scoring system. 2 thumbs is great, 1 is recommend and no thumbs is don't recommend. Siskel and Ebert knew what was up.
Post by: NWR_DrewMG on November 15, 2006, 10:28:57 AM
Post by: The Omen on November 15, 2006, 12:18:23 PM
Quote
My "review scores don't mean anything" attitude has always been there, because reviewers have always been morons. Two of my favorite films are A Knight's Tale and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas If I had listened to the reviews like you do, I never would have seen them. Game reviews are even worse, because game reviewers tend to have radically different tastes than me.
IMDB has your movies rated at 6.4 and 7.3 respectively. Would you not consider a movie or game in the 6 or 7 range? Because that's kind of the complaint in this thread.
Personally, I wish the gaming scene was like it was back in the late 80's/early 90's. You bought games based on meager previews and you imagining what the games would be like. You also were stuck with them-no trade ins, and no exchanges back then. So in effect, it forced you to find the positive factors of every game you played. And you know what? Every single game I bought, almost blindly, had it's good points. Nowadays games are dismissed out of hand because they're ranked below a 7 for devils sake. You'll almost never find that hidden gem anymore. And that's ridiculous/
Post by: Kairon on November 15, 2006, 01:00:25 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: zakkiel on November 15, 2006, 01:04:20 PM
Post by: Mario on November 15, 2006, 02:00:29 PM
Quote
A 7 game usually isn't worth my time. Why should I bother with stuff that is merely decent when I can get something great for the same price.
SO you're basically conceeding your opinion to ONE person. "Here sir, decide what my tastes are!" The point is reviews AREN'T indicative of what YOU will find to be quality.
If someone is looking forward to Excite Truck, loves the gameplay vids and info about it, and has even played it briefly, a review score should NOT stop them from buying it, because they WILL love the game.
Then on the other hand, you have people who never intended to get a game use a review as "proof" the game sucks to justify their trolling.
Did you dismiss Mario Kart 64 as not worth your time after it got 6.4 from Gamespot and lots of 7s elsewhere?
Post by: KnowsNothing on November 15, 2006, 02:04:47 PM
And Mario just explained it.
Post by: IceCold on November 15, 2006, 02:17:54 PM
Post by: Mario on November 15, 2006, 02:31:28 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold
GameSpot gave Jungle Beat a 7... I don't know how on earth they managed that, but they did.
LOL!!! I just realised Jeff Gerstmann reviewed DKJB as well. That also reminds me of the ET review "you CAN do all this extra stuff, but I didn't so the game lacks depth".
Post by: Chris1 on November 15, 2006, 05:13:43 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on November 15, 2006, 05:31:16 PM
Post by: Rhoq on November 15, 2006, 05:45:17 PM
I know I said it earlier in this thread, but I can't emphasize it enough: graphics should only be judged based on the capabilities of the system they were designed for. It is in no way fair to compare just about any Wii game to it's XBox 360/PS3 counterpart. Gameplay, sure. Graphics - definitely not.
Post by: Smoke39 on November 15, 2006, 05:47:06 PM
Post by: Cortez the Kiler on November 15, 2006, 05:55:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Rhoq
I hope they allow Craig Harris to write more Wii reviews, though he's probably just helping his Nintendo brethren out during the launch madness. This was the first IGN Wii review that didn't knock the game for it's "last gen" graphics. It's probably because he's so used to playing DS and GBA games that just about anything on any current system would be look great to him. Cassamassina and Bozon need to adopt Harris' perspective when reviewing Wii games, quickly.
Agreed. It is going to get really old if every Wii review says the graphics do not meet the standards set by the PS3 or the 360. The purpose of the review should be to review the game, not the system. It is common knowledge that the Wii is underpowered compared to the other systems and subsequently will not have the same visual impact. If this is going to be a continued practice I would hope that the editors of the other systems would include when the controls of their versions were not a fun as the Wii version. Sadly, this will most likely not be the case.
Post by: Chris1 on November 15, 2006, 05:56:49 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 15, 2006, 06:41:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Cortez the KilerQuote
Originally posted by: Rhoq
I hope they allow Craig Harris to write more Wii reviews, though he's probably just helping his Nintendo brethren out during the launch madness. This was the first IGN Wii review that didn't knock the game for it's "last gen" graphics. It's probably because he's so used to playing DS and GBA games that just about anything on any current system would be look great to him. Cassamassina and Bozon need to adopt Harris' perspective when reviewing Wii games, quickly.
Agreed. It is going to get really old if every Wii review says the graphics do not meet the standards set by the PS3 or the 360. The purpose of the review should be to review the game, not the system. It is common knowledge that the Wii is underpowered compared to the other systems and subsequently will not have the same visual impact. If this is going to be a continued practice I would hope that the editors of the other systems would include when the controls of their versions were not a fun as the Wii version. Sadly, this will most likely not be the case.
Indeed, indeed.
Can you not agree that the reviewers are penalizing game visuals because WE, the CONSUMERS aren't shelling out another $100-$400 more on the console purchase? Catch my drift?
It's craziness.
Post by: Pittbboi on November 15, 2006, 07:53:46 PM
However, that doesn't change the fact that most of the games released thus far look like Gamecube games and don't seem to be taking advantage of the extra power we know the Wii has (just how much more power is still unknown). I don't think Craig whined less about the graphics than Matt because he has a better perspective. Truth be told, Excite Truck is one of the nicer, if not the nicest, looking games for the Wii launch. From the games that I saw in person, Excite Truck came the closest to actually looking like a next-gen game, and even then it still looked like it could have been done on the Gamecube with ease. I think these games look good to us because they look like great Gamecube games and we aren't expecting next-gen graphics like with the Xbox360 and PS3. However, when you take into account that while the Wii may not be nearly as powerful as those two consoles, according to Nintendo it's definitely more powerful than the Gamecube, you can see why Matt and IGN Wii is expecting more, and I agree. It's not the fact that Wii games aren't looking as nice as Xbox360 and PS3 games, it's that the launch games aren't showing what we're led to believe the Wii is capable of, even in it's first generation.
And I think a lot of first gen games are going to look like Gamecube games. Remember, it was Nintendo that waited until the last minute to give out dev kits. It wasn't until months ago that most devs even knew more about the console than we as fans did...which was pretty much nothing. I don't expect games that truly show what the Wii can really do to be released until mid-to-late 2007. Until then, expect most games to look like Gamecube or even early Xbox games, and expect reviews to reflect that.
Post by: The Traveller on November 15, 2006, 07:57:23 PM
I actually wrote an article about this. Im not one to 'spam' but if anyone wants to take a read heres the link. www.tendo-gamer.blogspot.com
Post by: Strell on November 15, 2006, 08:11:03 PM
I think you can partially lower the score for no-online, given that Nintendo really should have gotten that under control before the system launched. 'Course, they have to test the stuff themselves, and they want their own games to get on servers first, so I understand why they are going the route they are.
The graphics argument is stupid and totally worthless at this point, at least in a comparative sense. That would be like taking a point off every PS3 games' score because the PS3 will inevitably have hardware issues. Or that the PS3 orders can't be filled, so I'm going to lower the score.
The point with the Wii is that the graphics aren't everything. You know that going into it. Now if the frame rate sucks, that is one thing. But worse graphics overall isn't a valid argument at this time.
Also, I really don't think anyone honestly goads themselves into thinking motion control makes up or eliminates the need for online play. That's just silly.
Post by: Hostile Creation on November 15, 2006, 09:33:18 PM
Post by: Artimus on November 15, 2006, 09:36:21 PM
Let's be honest, something like SMB looks great and far superior to its GCN version. But does it look better in relation to the original when it debued with the GCN? Let's compare the graphics scores of the original SMB and the SMB:BB.
SMB
7.0: A superb, constant fluidity of 60 frames per second is a relief. But otherwise nothing terribly special.
SMB:BB
7.0: Crisp, clean, colorful cel-shaded visuals are a natural fit for the franchise. Runs at 60 frames in pro-scan and 16:9 widescreen. Still, the graphics are very simple.
In otherwords, both are nice but rather simplistic. Not a bad score by anymeans, but it leaves plenty of room for superior games. And, IGN gave BB a better overall score than SMB, so there you go.
To make another comparison, both Wave Race: BS and ExciteTruck received 8.0 for their graphics (WR did do much better overall, though). Both reviews like the graphics but found them to be similar across levels and nothing particularly special or memorable. Sounds like a good 8.0 to me.
And, oddly enough, Tony Hawk earned 7.0 for both its first GCN game and its first Wii game.
These graphics scores are in no way abnormally low...
Post by: Artimus on November 15, 2006, 09:41:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Strell
I think people equate the scale to grade school, where a 7 = 70 = average score.
They may do that, but they're wrong to. In school you are graded in part for right and wrong. In math, for example, a 50 isn't acceptable because it means you don't know as much as you do know. It's totally unrelated. Essays are a little different in that they're more ambiguous, but in that case the score is again made so that it matches with the right/wrong courses. You have to make the scale so a great paper in English is going to get the corresponding mark to a great math test. 70 is sort of the threshold for acceptability in math (and other right/wrong courses) so it sort of developed into a standard.
In "art" (I hate using that word, sorry in advance) it's totally ambiguous. The better the reviewer the wider their score range. A lot of reviewers give like 7.0 and 7.3 and 7.2 and 6.8 and such. How can you even judge what that means? You should be using 5 as the median because it gives you equal on either side of bad and good. I know people do do that always, but the closer you are the better.
Post by: Mario on November 16, 2006, 02:17:05 AM
Quote
To make another comparison, both Wave Race: BS and ExciteTruck received 8.0 for their graphics (WR did do much better overall, though). Both reviews like the graphics but found them to be similar across levels and nothing particularly special or memorable. Sounds like a good 8.0 to me.
Wow, nothing special or memorable? Blue Storm still holds up to this day as having the best water in any videogame. I guess it's sort of part of the gameplay though.
Post by: Nick DiMola on November 16, 2006, 02:31:58 AM
Post by: Artimus on November 16, 2006, 03:05:47 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: MarioQuote
To make another comparison, both Wave Race: BS and ExciteTruck received 8.0 for their graphics (WR did do much better overall, though). Both reviews like the graphics but found them to be similar across levels and nothing particularly special or memorable. Sounds like a good 8.0 to me.
Wow, nothing special or memorable? Blue Storm still holds up to this day as having the best water in any videogame. I guess it's sort of part of the gameplay though.
One element hardly makes it worth a 10...but really, that wasn't the point of my post. You can easily agree or disagree with ANY score, but the Wii graphics scores are NOT oddly low. And, at the same time, the games aren't receiving lower scores because of their graphics. WR got a 9.1 even with an 8 in graphics. So if ER got a lower overall score, it was for other reasons.
Post by: Darkheart on November 16, 2006, 03:23:17 AM
Quote
The new control of these games should be adding something to the scores.
I dont think the controller should give any extra points. Thats like giving someone in class extra credit for every test for no reason. The controller is the means of how we play, just like the PS3, just like the 360. The only thing that should recieve points is controls. If controls are funky and working against the game then points should be docked. I think you guys are giving too much credit to the controller.
I actually like Ign reviews I think they are pretty balanced. It makes no sense for Excite truck or SMBBB to be getting 9's and then to watch Zelda get 9.5s/10s. They are not equal at all. There HAS to be room for the top tier games and the good ones. the 7-8 range is a great range to be in.
Also regardless of numbers, this doesn't always affect the sales. Shadow the hedgehog freakin sold through the roof because children wanted it. Children and parents rarely read reviews.
Im not even sure if it was mentioned in here but Gabe from Penny Arcade was even talking about how great Zelda is and knocking down on Joystiq for their lame editorials. BUT he did say how the graphics were not up to par, not even as a gamecube game. He used Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles and RE4 as examples of the best looking games on Gamecube and how Zelda doesn't match that visual representation.
So I think everyone just needs to tone down the hate of Ign and actually see their reviews for being for the majority pretty decent.
Post by: Rhoq on November 16, 2006, 03:26:39 AM
Where the fu*k is Wave Race Wii? That should have been Nintendo's launch racer instead of Excite Truck, IMHO.
Post by: Darkheart on November 16, 2006, 03:30:22 AM
Post by: NWR_pap64 on November 16, 2006, 03:51:10 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: darkheartQuote
The new control of these games should be adding something to the scores.
I dont think the controller should give any extra points. Thats like giving someone in class extra credit for every test for no reason. The controller is the means of how we play, just like the PS3, just like the 360. The only thing that should recieve points is controls. If controls are funky and working against the game then points should be docked. I think you guys are giving too much credit to the controller.
I actually like Ign reviews I think they are pretty balanced. It makes no sense for Excite truck or SMBBB to be getting 9's and then to watch Zelda get 9.5s/10s. They are not equal at all. There HAS to be room for the top tier games and the good ones. the 7-8 range is a great range to be in.
Also regardless of numbers, this doesn't always affect the sales. Shadow the hedgehog freakin sold through the roof because children wanted it. Children and parents rarely read reviews.
Im not even sure if it was mentioned in here but Gabe from Penny Arcade was even talking about how great Zelda is and knocking down on Joystiq for their lame editorials. BUT he did say how the graphics were not up to par, not even as a gamecube game. He used Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles and RE4 as examples of the best looking games on Gamecube and how Zelda doesn't match that visual representation.
So I think everyone just needs to tone down the hate of Ign and actually see their reviews for being for the majority pretty decent.
About the controls:
I'm sorry, but control IS a vital part of a game review, especially with the Wii. Have you ever played a game in which the controls sucked so bad it ruined the game for you, even when the game has a rock solid concept, visuals, music, story and execution? Controls are almost up there with gameplay as the most important part of a game because its the gateway to the interaction and if that fails the enjoyment is killed.
I also think that with the Wii controls could indeed enhance the enjoyment of the game further. The main appeal of the Wii is that the controller puts you in direct control of the game's movement. It also promises to simplify controls. So if a Wii game either:
- Truly makes it to that it feels like you are in that world
- Simplifies a control scheme
then extra points SHOULD be considered. true, Gameplay must be evaluated first, but if the control scheme adds to the value, then it should be considered as a major part of the game.
As for the graphics, people, I will tell you this...
GRAPHICS...MEAN...JACK SH*T
True, the games don't look as pretty as the 360 and PS3 games, but if you actually took the time to do the research you will learn that the graphically underpowered console is always in the lead.
The NES beat the Master System
The Genesis won over the SNES (which can be debatable)
The PSone won over the N64
The Gameboy won over the Game gear, the Nomad, Tiger, com etc. etc.
The GBA won over the N-Gage, the Wonderswan etc. etc.
The PS2 won over the XBOX and GC
And finally, we have the DS. It is basically an enhanced N64 with touch screen controls and other gimmicks. Worst of all, during launch very few games showed off the DS as a 3D system. Yet now it is a worldwide sensation. The PSP even had graphics THAT WERE ON PAR WITH PS2 GAMES, and yet it bombed badly.
Also, the best selling DS games have been the graphically simple ones, like Brain age and Animal crossing.
One other thing, its true that the initial launch titles don't look impressive, but GIVE DEVELOPERS TIME. RE 4 was one beautiful game and it was on the GC. If the Wii is a GC times 2, imagine what developers could do.
Post by: Spak-Spang on November 16, 2006, 04:09:54 AM
As for control and grading systems. I don't think it should ADD points to your score, but almost every review I have read they are TAKING AWAY points if the new controls aren't better/as good as analog control.
It's like the reviewers aren't reviewing each individual game to see if the controls work and are fun. But looking at it through: "Are these controls better than traditional gaming?" If it is not then it gets lower scores.
That is not a fair justification of reviews. An analogy of this is Turok vs. Goldeneye controls. Some people loved Turok style controls, and it certainly worked for the series. While others preferred Goldeneye's. But they were both First person shooters. As a reviewer I should not say Turok's controls are bad because I like Goldeneye's better. I should only discredit the controls if they are truly hurt the game play.
Post by: Cortez the Kiler on November 16, 2006, 04:27:44 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on November 16, 2006, 04:32:00 AM
Mostly, I think people shouldn't worry about "low" review scores. If you're worried that the games aren't as good as you hoped, rent them first! If you're worried that these reviews are going to hurt Wii, don't. Most people won't even read them.
I think a lot of us are going to subjectively enjoy Wii games more than the scores are letting on. The new experience will make it even more fun! However, I respect that some reviewers see that better games will be coming down the line. And I'm sure they're right in a lot of cases. The Excite Truck review ended on that note - there's probably going to be a better arcade racing game this generation. One that's online, allows four players, and takes more than a day to play through all the tracks.
Very late edit: how did I miss that not?
Post by: TerribleOne on November 16, 2006, 04:49:16 AM
When you really think about it Wii is in a league of its own and probably will be its entire lifetime. So since it's the first of its kind, the Wii can only be judged against the Wii and perhaps people reviewing it are having trouble waging the pros and cons since they have nothing to compare it to. That's why everyone is starting off with odd reviews.
In fact I think people are being paranoid that the Wii is being compared graphically to the 360/PS3 but did you ever stop to think that the games are not impressive by their own merits and accomplishments. IMHO ExciteTruck is super boring to me.. 6.8 or 9.6 I could care less.
Post by: BigJim on November 16, 2006, 05:58:10 AM
For the controls, I don't think there should be any automatic tacking-on of points. If their implementation is crap, they deserve lower scores. If it enhances gameplay, they deserve a high score. This is Nintendo's crown jewel and should be reviewed fairly within the context of the actual experience.
Post by: Nick DiMola on November 16, 2006, 07:16:16 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
For the controls, I don't think there should be any automatic tacking-on of points. If their implementation is crap, they deserve lower scores. If it enhances gameplay, they deserve a high score. This is Nintendo's crown jewel and should be reviewed fairly within the context of the actual experience.
I don't condone an "automatic taking on of points" for Wii games, but if you can look at the game and say it is more fun to play the game with the new control scheme compared to the old one, it deserves extra points. I also agree that if the motion controls feel shoehorned in (like alot of DS games with the touch screen), the score actually deserves to be lowered. Remember that the Wii was created around the new control experience, not considering that in your review is essentially ignoring that you are reviewing a Wii game. I personally think every Wii review should answer whether or not it is more fun to play with the new controller, because when it comes down to it, all I care about is the game being fun and if the Wii controller augments fun or decreases it.
Post by: Artimus on November 16, 2006, 07:18:15 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on November 16, 2006, 07:20:50 AM
No I'm not. I don't just look at one review score. I use a site like gamerankings to get access to several reviews. Usually I read the exceptional ones. The people who like the game that everyone else hates and vice versa. If I can play a demo in a store I do. If I was interested in the game prior to reviews coming out I'll rent it or look further into it to find out why the game is getting scored as it is. Who is making the game plays a role as well. If Miyamoto made the game I'm going to make more of an effort to play it. If some THQ game is getting sh!t on I know I don't have to bother with it. If a Sonic game is getting sh!t on I'm not going to give it even the slightest chance because I got burned by the last several Sonic games.
It makes no sense to completely disregard reviews because then you have no idea where to start. Are you going to just buy or rent (ie: spend money) on every game there is or read every review in detail, ignoring the score? That makes no sense. Usually I have a level of interest about a game beforehand and that level of interest determines how much effort I put into things. If I have no interest and see low scores I avoid. If I have high interest and see high scores I buy. If the opposite of what I expected happens I look into it.
Regarding giving extra points for the controls I think that makes no sense. Potential or trying new ideas out only means squat if executed well. To me giving those extra points just because of the controller is giving a game a "nice try" award. That isn't what a review is supposed to be about. It's supposed to be "how good is this game".
Post by: couchmonkey on November 16, 2006, 07:26:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
The reason ExciteTruck got an 8.0, I'd say, wasn't that it had 7.0 graphics but because it has 5.5 lasting appeal. If it had more meat I'm sure it'd be higher overall.
Yeah, absolutely. Of course, the other thing to remember is that 8.0 is actually a good score. In theory - it's a different reviewer so it's not quite true - but in theory, this means that IGN likes Excite Truck more than Mario Kart: Double Dash (7.9). Even if the truth is that they consider it about equal to Double Dash, I'd still say that makes it a pretty good game.
Post by: Cortez the Kiler on November 16, 2006, 07:30:58 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on November 16, 2006, 08:15:15 AM
Post by: zakkiel on November 16, 2006, 10:37:01 AM
QuoteWhy, thank you for informing me. I shall stop caring about them immediately.
As for the graphics, people, I will tell you this...
GRAPHICS...MEAN...JACK SH*T
Post by: Chris1 on November 16, 2006, 11:35:56 AM
Post by: Cortez the Kiler on November 16, 2006, 11:48:24 AM
Post by: IceCold on November 16, 2006, 11:58:25 AM
QuoteThat's how it should be.. Unfortunately, it's offset by the inflated scores on most other Internet review sites.
I actually like Ign reviews I think they are pretty balanced. It makes no sense for Excite truck or SMBBB to be getting 9's and then to watch Zelda get 9.5s/10s. They are not equal at all. There HAS to be room for the top tier games and the good ones. the 7-8 range is a great range to be in.
Post by: vudu on November 16, 2006, 02:52:05 PM
QuoteSame here. I was between Rayman and Monkey Ball, but it's looking like Rayman will have a better single player experience (I'm really not a big fan of Monkey Ball outside of the party games).
Originally posted by: Cortez the Kiler
This looks more and more like a Zelda and Rayman launch for me.
Post by: wandering on November 16, 2006, 06:05:24 PM
Quote
IMDB has your movies rated at 6.4 and 7.3 respectively. Would you not consider a movie or game in the 6 or 7 range? Because that's kind of the complaint in this thread.
Well, a 6 in movie review terms is more like a 4 in game review terms.
Quote
You'll almost never find that hidden gem anymore. And that's ridiculous
I feel the same way. The only time I come across hidden gems these days are when I get them as presents. I got Two Towers for the GBA a few years back, a game I'd never consider buying, and was surprised by how much I enjoyed it.
Quote
I noticed lots of 7's and 6's. Is Matt & Co being harsh? Ye-- NO, actually. Cuz you notice something under the overall review score that's been there for quite a while, a single word descriptor like "Good" or "Impressive", and it's all documented in the Rating Guide page. Matt is probably making a new effort to conform to the review system (that he probably helped create) and is trying to re-educate the audience on how the scores are to be interpretted (lol, good luck internets).
I don't think so. You're saying the review scores don't match up with the reviews - I say the only thing they don't match up with is the massive hype coming from Nintendo fans. GameCube-quality graphics, sub-10-hour single player modes, 2-player-only multiplayer, and no online functionality do not 9.5s make. At least, in ign land - a strange and mysterious place where review scores have never matched up with how worthy a game is of purchase. A land whose inhabitants think Donkey Kong 64 and Star Fox Adventures are better games than Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney. Truly, it is a place one should never venture except out of absolute necessity.
Post by: Kairon on November 16, 2006, 06:23:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
At least, in ign land - a strange and mysterious place where review scores have never matched up with how worthy a game is of purchase. A land whose inhabitants think Donkey Kong 64 and Star Fox Adventures are better games than Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney.
I am confused. I thought you were being sarcastic until you got here. Now I can't believe I EVER trusted IGN reviews in my entire life.
I actually agree with you though. I don't find anything to really complain about with the numerical values: they seem fine to me for games that are fun and cool and all, but have flaws, are ports, or etc.
My complaint is that the text of the review doesn't dwell enough on the negatives of the games and thus don't match up. If they can't explain the score in the text of the review, then that makes the numerical score seem to emerge from some black box where we have no idea how they reached that score. That's the problem: not that their scores are lying, but their reviews texts are leaving out the negatives from their context.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Artimus on November 16, 2006, 06:32:41 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
Well, a 6 in movie review terms is more like a 4 in game review terms.
Right. It's the opposite actually. It's like the equivalent of a 7-8. The highest rated IMDB movie is 9.1, most game sites go up to at least 9.8 if not 10 every so often. A 6 is the baseline for a positive review (it's also the freshold on Rotten Tomatoes).
Post by: wandering on November 16, 2006, 06:52:24 PM
Quote
That's the problem: not that their scores are lying, but their reviews texts are leaving out the negatives from their context.
You make a good point. With scores like that, the reviews could have done with a bit more negativity.
edit: BTW, to anyone worried that Wii's review scores will make the console look worse than the PS3 by comparison, don't be.
Post by: wandering on November 16, 2006, 10:29:32 PM
They don't like the sword controls, AI, or voices, and think the graphics are inconsistent, but seem to dig everything else. Most interestingly, they think the game has "perhaps the best example of multiplayer gameplay on the Wii at launch"
Post by: Darkheart on November 17, 2006, 12:53:51 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
At least, in ign land - a strange and mysterious place where review scores have never matched up with how worthy a game is of purchase. A land whose inhabitants think Donkey Kong 64 and Star Fox Adventures are better games than Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney.
Oh PLEASE STOP THIS STOP NOW!!!!
You are inferring that there is some ultimate MASTER list of games from the Nes to Wii that are all rated in some defined order. At least do this within its own system. All 3 games you mentioned are for 3 different Nintendo systems and thats going WAY out of line. You can not just compare Ocarina of time to nanostray on Ds and what not.
That is like if you guys turned on the NWR staff and started going all out on them. Remember that high score for GBA mario tennis? What if he gave Zelda the same score? Are you all goin to flip? What about the new super mario bros on the DS, most reviews gave it a score in the 9 range. . . . Does that mean its equal to Zelda twilight princess!? Also remember that games at launch usually are critiqued a bit easier than later in the systems life because there are better examples of what a game should be like for the appropriate console.
I think you guys just look for excuses to hate on Ign sometimes. They are more reputable than some sites and are at least loyal to their fans. Most of their visitors are Nintendo fanboys. It just seems so stupid to bash on Ign so much when they are actually a good thing for the most part for the Nintendo online fan community. If you need or want to hate on someone go hate on Joystiq because they do shady stuff thats retarded.
Post by: Nick DiMola on November 17, 2006, 01:00:22 AM
Post by: Nick DiMola on November 17, 2006, 01:19:58 AM
On the other hand, I have a huuuuuuuuuuuge hatred for gamespot. They are Sony fanboys (which is the worst kind of fanboy). You have all different editors reviewing games on every system, and half of the editors on the site really don't like Nintendo games. When games are reviewed you see terrible scores for Nintendo games and great scores for mediocre crap games on the PS2, hell even the Xbox gets the shaft over there. Games that I loved from the N64 era were sh!t all over by Jeff Gerstmann (who I especially hate), then games that I could never see the value in were praised (without reason). When most of those reviewers can't get into a game (usually because they suck at it) they rip on it. They find all the negatives and bring those to the forefront in their review like they are 2 year old or something.
As far a set score for all games out there, for each of us there is a set score out there for every single game. We all have different opinions and tastes. Though all of us in these forums are Nintendo fans, we still aren't guaranteed to like the same thing (see Smash Bros. vs. Melee debate). But in a broader sense, there is a more fitting score for all games out there than the score it receives typically when it is really high, or really low(this is more rare).
Bottom line: Read the review for information about the game, if you like what they have to say or don't like what they have to say, keep the score but don't take it to heart. You know what you like and dislike, if your likes line up with the focus of the game you should be just fine. I usually read the impressions for a much more solid description of what's going on, though they all seem to wind up sounding very positive.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 17, 2006, 05:39:10 AM
Post by: hudsonhawk on November 17, 2006, 06:48:21 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: darkheart
I think you guys just look for excuses to hate on Ign sometimes. They are more reputable than some sites and are at least loyal to their fans. Most of their visitors are Nintendo fanboys. It just seems so stupid to bash on Ign so much when they are actually a good thing for the most part for the Nintendo online fan community. If you need or want to hate on someone go hate on Joystiq because they do shady stuff thats retarded.
Agreed and well said. I've never understood the hate-on that a lot of the people here have for IGN. They're reliable, relatively respectable, and their reviews tend to be honest and informative (if 2-3 pages too long).
Yes they can be critical of Nintendo but I've never felt their criticisms were unfair.
Post by: Smash_Brother on November 17, 2006, 06:59:31 AM
I'm inclined to believe IGN's reviews are worthless, especially when you read their THDJ review and it complains about the sensitivity of the Wiimote being too low and I'm almost positive the game includes an option to adjust it in the settings menu.
I'm just not going to give their reviews any credence anymore.
Post by: KnowsNothing on November 17, 2006, 07:28:55 AM
Quote
It was originally an intention to include a sensitivity option in the menu to tweak the controller's tilt, but that apparently had to be cut out.
Post by: Smash_Brother on November 17, 2006, 07:54:16 AM
But their controller qualms are still contrasted by far more persuasive testimony such as this:
After all this, here is the part that blew me away. My wife, the non-gamer, asked me if she could try the game. After a few short minutes of play, she was doing almost as well as I was, and was very convinced that we ‘need’ a Wii and this game as soon as it launches. The Wiimote and some excellent design made my wife into a gamer. This may be the happiest moment of my life. Source
He never mentioned the control feeling at all awkward or difficult, especially since his non-gamer wife was apparently able to pick up and go with such haste.
Post by: Kairon on November 17, 2006, 11:09:32 AM
...dunno about NWR's though...
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Jin-X on November 17, 2006, 03:24:35 PM
Quote
8.5 Presentation
It has more modes than the other versions, a good mix of multiplayer, and a tutorial mode that makes the transition to Wii very smooth. More precision in motion is the next step.
7.0 Graphics
Madden 07 looks like a slight upgrade from the GCN version. There’s definite room for improvement though, as animation flickers, sketchy textures, and horizontal tearing is still apparent.
8.5 Sound
As always, EA’s choice of in-game music is pretty dead on for the genre. Tons of tracks, decent commentary, and pretty admirable sound effects too.
8.5 Gameplay
Most of the motion control is intuitive and entertaining, though kicking is a bit off. A few of the motions are very specific, and need exact input. Multiplayer is a great addition
9.0 Lasting Appeal
With dozens of different modes and options, there’s no way Madden 07 will let a hardcore football fan down. Multiplayer is the icing on the cake, and we’d love more in the future.
Post by: IceCold on November 17, 2006, 05:17:24 PM
Post by: Shecky on November 17, 2006, 05:28:38 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 17, 2006, 06:03:29 PM
Post by: wandering on November 17, 2006, 06:11:35 PM
Post by: Caterkiller on November 17, 2006, 06:21:18 PM
Post by: matt oz on November 17, 2006, 06:26:57 PM
Everyone knew Zelda would be great, no question. I doubt very many purchases were hinging on reviews of the game.
But Red Steel seems a lot more iffy, so I would've liked to see that review.
Hopefully walmart.com has already shipped Zelda so I can play it on Sunday. I should've bought it at a store, but I thought it would be too hard to find, so I went with the internet, and now I hope I don't regret it.
Post by: wandering on November 17, 2006, 06:50:44 PM
Quote
It just seems so stupid to bash on Ign so much when they are actually a good thing for the most part for the Nintendo online fan community. If you need or want to hate on someone go hate on Joystiq because they do shady stuff thats retarded.
People hate ign because they're the biggest game in town. There are worse gaming websites, but none of them are more popular.
Quote
That is like if you guys turned on the NWR staff and started going all out on them. Remember that high score for GBA mario tennis? What if he gave Zelda the same score? Are you all goin to flip?
Not really a fair comparison because NWR allows multiple reviews of the same game, and doesn't declare any one person's opinion definitive.
Post by: Kairon on November 17, 2006, 06:59:28 PM
Sounds about right to me, especially with Gamespot's review scale. I never expected the game to be anything more than average + waggle.
GOD Sunday is so close, I can't wait to play it!
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Mario on November 17, 2006, 08:11:44 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 17, 2006, 08:21:48 PM
Quote
The Bad: Clunky sword-fighting sequences slapped into the middle of all the shooting; inane story chock-full of painful dialogue and voice acting; numerous noticeable bugs and glitches.
Oh no, bad dialogue, inane story, we NEVER get those in first person shooters. Glitches and bugs? From what I read they are not that bad. Probaly the only legit one is the "clunky sword-fighting" which remains to be seen.
Post by: Rhoq on November 17, 2006, 11:26:51 PM
IGN has reviewed 8 Wii titles as of right now and 14 PS3...
The average IGN rating for the PS3 is 7.4
The average IGN rating for the Wii is 8.1
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 18, 2006, 09:12:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Rhoq
Well guys, I'm bored out of my mind waiting for the Wii. To pass few minutes of time, I was curious to see how IGN had rated the launch titles for both the Wii and the PS3.
IGN has reviewed 8 Wii titles as of right now and 14 PS3...
The average IGN rating for the PS3 is 7.4
The average IGN rating for the Wii is 8.1
That is actually a pretty good average for Wii, I just hope Red Steel at least gets a 7/10 because the gamespot review has me a bit concerned (even if I felt it was nitpicky).
Post by: The Omen on November 18, 2006, 09:20:03 AM
Post by: trip1eX on November 18, 2006, 09:27:58 AM
He sounds pretty convincing so I believe him tho with the internet you never know. He says you can bet he rated the game much higher.
I have to say GAmespot's complaints don't bug me and the reviewer spent little time outlining how well the aiming and turning is with the wiimote and covering things such as 'nade throws, kinds of guns or the slowdown mode or sparing lives.....
I really agree with the poster in the link above when he says 2 things.
First most reviews aren't taking into consideration what the Wii is really about and that's F-U-N.
And second, the review (and this is true for other reviews even semi-favorable ones) spends more time criticizing the game for what it isn't instead of what it is.
He also harps on glitches and what not yet provides pretty much zero examples.
