Post by: Bobthecow2357 on November 12, 2003, 12:39:29 AM
Post by: Mario on November 12, 2003, 01:06:42 AM
Here is a much better review http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=53660
Post by: joshnickerson on November 12, 2003, 02:58:53 AM
Post by: thecubedcanuck on November 12, 2003, 03:10:04 AM
Post by: babble on November 12, 2003, 04:48:17 AM
Post by: Ymeegod on November 12, 2003, 05:17:13 AM
Found that works the best.
Or you could just rent the game :0.
Post by: CaseyRyback on November 12, 2003, 05:46:55 AM
In Gamespots preview they said it fixed all the faults there were in the game from Mario Kart 64, so if MK64 was flawed and the flaws are fixed I expect it to be fun
Post by: Jdub03 on November 12, 2003, 05:59:47 AM
Post by: Hostile Creation on November 12, 2003, 06:41:41 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on November 12, 2003, 07:00:10 AM
Back when Super Mario Sunshine came out almost everybody gave it a very favourable review. Then the general gaming population played it and felt that it wasn't as good as everyone said. Critics were accused of falling for hype. Therefore it's possible that IGN is giving Mario Kart a lower score than most people are so that if the same situation happens again then they don't have egg on their face.
Since most reviews these days are all over the place I never trust any one site. I'm a big fan of gamerankings.com and I usually read several reviews for games I'm interested in. Read a lot of reviews and you will usually be able to see what the general flaws of the game are and then decide if they're flaws you can deal with.
I think Mario Kart will be worth owning when these various tunneling projects are working and all of us are racing each other online. Even if the game is a cookie-cutter sequel of Mario Kart 64 we certainly won't care then.
Post by: VideoGamerX on November 12, 2003, 07:20:28 AM
That doesn't mean Mario Kart isn't a good game, but it's not the second coming.
Oh well. We can't have everything. We have F-Zero GX which turned out superb.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on November 12, 2003, 07:36:47 AM
Should I believe IGN over everyone else?
I played the Demo and found the game to be awesome, I didn't find any problem with any of the flaws that IGN said, the game is still one of the best racers on the Market and definetly the most fun.
So no I don't really agree that the review was fair and honest, if everyone gave MK
D a low score than I'd agree but IGN is the only site giving it a low score.
Post by: VideoGamerX on November 12, 2003, 07:44:45 AM
I'll probably love the game, but that's because I didn't get to play Mario Kart 64. This will be totally new for me.
Post by: Hostile Creation on November 12, 2003, 07:46:29 AM
Post by: Pale on November 12, 2003, 07:59:38 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 12, 2003, 08:05:06 AM
QuoteNo, they didn't...Fran constantly bitched about the things that weren't in the game, instead of concentrating on reviewing what was IN the game...And his complaint for lack of kart skins is the most asinine thing I have ever read in a review...Kudos, IGN, for making bigger d***s of yourselves than you already have...I didn't think it was possible...
Originally posted by: VideoGamerX
It wasn't Mary Jane who wrote the Double Dash review. Fran wrote it. Mary Jane just included her comments at the end. I for one think IGN did a comprehensive honest review of the game. They have legit complaints that I think will match our own.
Post by: Pale on November 12, 2003, 08:15:02 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on November 12, 2003, 08:20:40 AM
I know. If Mario Kart 64 had skins or some other major kart racer that had changed the genre did then I could see complaining about the lack of that feature. But that's something that has never been in a kart racing game to my knowledge and absolutely no fan has ever asked for that feature. If you rate games poorly because of a lack of unrelated features than EVERY game sucks.
Gee in Metroid Prime I can't turn into a werewolf. That game sucks.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on November 12, 2003, 08:27:14 AM
That and online play.
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 12, 2003, 08:39:09 AM
*shakes head in disgust*
Post by: thecubedcanuck on November 12, 2003, 09:05:25 AM
No that isnt what THEY said, that is what Avinash_Tyagi said in the post above you, it is an assumption. IGN and the reviewer simply gave an opinion, the person reviewing the game didnt care for it, who really cares? I dont understand why people get so worked up about these things.
No one here has played the finished version yet. So when they say the game is great, and that IGN is biased I cant help but laugh at the hypocricy behind comments like that.
PLay the game then decide. If you still hate the guy, so be it. Differing opinions, oh the tragedy.
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 12, 2003, 09:19:25 AM
And the reason I'm getting worked up is that Fran is basing his "opinions" off things he thought should have been in the game(as stupid as they were)...He wanted skins for the karts, more unlockables(Hello! This game has included the most unlockables of any MK to date!), and he complained that the graphics were too kiddy(This is a Mario game!)...It's as if he had never played a Mario or Mario Kart game before...
Post by: The Omen on November 12, 2003, 09:26:13 AM
Post by: Cap on November 12, 2003, 09:27:54 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 12, 2003, 10:22:52 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on November 12, 2003, 10:32:40 AM
"The only problem it has is the setup. You aren't given the option to select your characters -- even with as little as two people on seperate TVs."
What the hell does that mean? You can't pick your characters in LAN play? How does it determine who plays who then? If that's the case then that's a pretty dumb restriction and will really hurt online play.
One thing I noticed about the review is that the reviewer is complaining about how the game is too cookie-cutter. That in itself is a reasonable complaint (though the two character setup seems to have been ignored) but it's hypocritical for IGN to give Mario Kart a ho-hum score for that reason while F-Zero GX, which is also very cookie-cutter, gets a score in 9's.
Nintendo seems to get this "not original enough" BS a lot which always bugs me because those same reviewers will then gush over Soul Calibur II, or the latest Madden, or GTA; Vice City, or the latest Final Fantasy, etc. It's ridiculous to expect Nintendo to completely innovate every time while not expecting other developers to do the same thing.
I imagine if Nintendo just included online support then IGN would have completely overlooked any of the flaws and given the game a great score. Online support is a really simple way to bring new life to a multiplayer focused game that doesn't lend itself to innovation. If Nintendo wasn't so stubborn (and to some extent senile) in their approach to online gaming they could easily spice up some of their multiplayer games and all of the "cookie-cutter" complaints would disappear.
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on November 12, 2003, 10:36:15 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 12, 2003, 10:38:28 AM
Post by: Armed on November 12, 2003, 10:48:27 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on November 12, 2003, 10:56:15 AM
Me. And a fair bit of people on this forum who plan on playing Mario Kart online using some options that are much more complicated than anything Nintendo themselves would come up with. If you don't want to play online then don't. But it should at least be an option for multiplayer games. It wouldn't cost much for Nintendo either. This isn't like an online RPG or anything. Games like Smash Bros, Mario Kart, and F-Zero don't need anything else beyond simple matchmaking. That is not going to require a lot of costs on Nintendo's part (Blizzard manages to do it for free and they're not in severe debt) or a fee on our part. It's also simple enough that they could probably make it so all you have to do is plug you online connection into your modem and everything else is handled by the game itself. LAN gaming is a much more non-user friendly approach that only appeals to the super hardcore. Ditto GBA/GC connectivity.
Anyway this is getting off topic. I just think it's something that Nintendo could add to games like Mario Kart that would make them seem more fresh and new without really changing the formula much.
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 12, 2003, 11:04:42 AM
I do agree with what you said about Nintendo not the only one who doesn't innovate every game. Just the other day I saw a commercial for Ratchet and Clank 2 and thought to myself, this is Ratchet and Clank with a 2 in the title, nothing more. So why are people railing on Nintendo? It doesn't make sense.
Post by: WesDawg on November 12, 2003, 11:15:20 AM
Post by: CaseyRyback on November 12, 2003, 11:15:37 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 12, 2003, 11:17:59 AM
Post by: manunited4eva22 on November 12, 2003, 11:19:39 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on November 12, 2003, 11:21:00 AM
I don't know exactly what sort of costs are involved but whenever people talk about some online game that costs too much to maintain 99% of the time they're talking about an online RPG which is a very different situation. Matchmaking doesn't require you to be adding new content or anything like that so the costs of maintaining it are lower. It still costs money but I don't know how much of a loss it is. If the game sells well enough their might not even be a loss. I'm just saying that Blizzard has had Battle.net for years and they seem to be okay. Activision has also made every Tony Hawk game on the PS2 online and I have yet to hear of any problems stemming from it.
It doesn't really matter anyway since Nintendo will likely never go online with the Cube and it's already too late to add it to the games that could have used it. These sort of additions to multiplayer games are more needed for the N5 versions of these games. By then if Nintendo can't justify doing simple online matchmaking then they really will have gone insane.
"Just the other day I saw a commercial for Ratchet and Clank 2 and thought to myself, this is Ratchet and Clank with a 2 in the title, nothing more."
I saw that commercial as well and thought "That's a great commercial. It's funny and links directly to the first game's ads. Why doesn't Nintendo make ads like that?" But that's a topic to beat into the ground for another day.
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 12, 2003, 11:22:21 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 12, 2003, 11:28:25 AM
manunited: I would never pay to play online- not because I don't see the reason for having to pay, but because I don't like the idea of continuosly having to pay any amount to play the same game. I'm interested in getting an XBox, but most certainly not for XBox Live. Which, on an offnote, just hit 500,000 users- if only half a million people play online on a system whose online play is it's main selling point, and a large chunk of its owners are PC gamers, how well do you think it'd do on the Gamecube? I admire Microsoft's gusto with setting up such a great plan, but it's hardly successful, much less profitable.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 12, 2003, 11:33:39 AM
I agree that innovation is overhyped and not always needed. I just want sequels to improve on the previous game. That means new levels/tracks/characters/powerups/etc, tighter controls, a few new abilities (nothing super original, stuff like the ability for Samus to cling to ledges in Metroid Fusion is a perfect addition) and better graphics and sound. I don't need something that completely changes everything around. For example I was disappointed in Super Mario Sunshine not because I didn't feel it was innovative but because it just wasn't as fun as Super Mario 64. If anything the game tried too hard to be innovative by adding the water pack. If the game was similar to Super Mario 64 but with improvements all around and some new moves and abilities for Mario it would be fantastic.
For me the ideal sequel is Super Smash Bros Melee. It wasn't particularly innovative but it improved on everything and added tons of new stuff. That's how you do a sequel.
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 12, 2003, 11:40:43 AM
Quote
For me the ideal sequel is Super Smash Bros Melee. It wasn't particularly innovative but it improved on everything and added tons of new stuff. That's how you do a sequel.
EXACTLY- I couldn't agree more. SSBM added so much while still keeping it all basically the same. In other news, IGN gave Ratched and Clank: Going Commando a 9.4- why does "cookie cutter" sequel Mario Kart with some pretty hefty additions get a 7.9 when Ratchet and Clank 1½ gets a 9.4? I've lost even more trust in IGN.
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 12, 2003, 11:42:06 AM
Post by: Pale on November 12, 2003, 11:43:09 AM
Post by: CaseyRyback on November 12, 2003, 11:48:15 AM
Whats the first thing out of an Xbox fannie is that it plays online, which helps sell a product that most Xbox owners do not have(even Harrison admitted to this)
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 12, 2003, 11:51:51 AM
Post by: VideoGamerX on November 12, 2003, 11:55:16 AM
Would I play Mario Kart DD online? No. Even if it were free? Still no. Why? Because I don't care for it. I have my reasons. I don't relish the fact that Jimbo and Bimbo can clear Mario Circuit I 24 seconds faster than me... because that's all they do 18 hours out of their day is sit and play Mario Kart nonstop. When you go online with these games, you're going to find yourself losing nonstop to these kinds of people. That's not fun. That's demoralizing.
I have a lot more fun playing my friends. With the most likely and expected setup we're going to have for online play, you're not going to get to choose your opponents. You'll have no way of telling who you're facing, and you're more than likely guaranteed to get stuck with a couple of Bimbos you'll never beat.
Even if you do beat them, what's the prize or the point? Bragging rights? It's an evaporating victory as far as I see it. It'll be gone as soon as you leave the race screen. I don't see a point for it.
I think RPGs are online worthy and I love MMORPGS. As far as racing games go, I think it's pointless. FPS's have etched themselves as online worthy, but even then I still think it's pointless (personal taste).
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on November 12, 2003, 12:00:00 PM
Quote
No that isnt what THEY said, that is what Avinash_Tyagi said in the post above you, it is an assumption. IGN and the reviewer simply gave an opinion, the person reviewing the game didnt care for it, who really cares? I dont understand why people get so worked up about these things.
You obviously missed the whole part of the review where they bashed the game as not appealing to Mature gamers due to its colorful graphics and gameplay.
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 12, 2003, 01:26:54 PM
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on November 12, 2003, 01:30:21 PM
Which is why I think that if the same game mechanics were in a game with more violence and more "Mature" characters as some would call them he would have given the game around a 10.
Post by: yellowfellow on November 12, 2003, 01:41:05 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 12, 2003, 01:51:04 PM
Post by: Pale on November 12, 2003, 02:00:30 PM
IGN is a FOR PROFIT business....
You can't let that bother you. You just have to understand that, much to most of our dismay, gaming is becoming main stream. As with anything that becomes main stream, the media must make the same hard fast rules about it. It HAS to be violent. It HAS to cause uproars. It has to be all about sex. The reason why IGN's reviews come out the way they do, is because they are catering to that audience. To be honest, they know that all us nintendo/mario kart fans, are gonna look at the review and laugh. But what they also know is that all those X-Box and PS2 fans are gonna be like..."hahahahha nintend is teh kiddie. We's are the kewl ones because we like virtuallz titTiez."...... ok, maybe not that bad, but you get my point. =P
Give the industry 2-3 more years, and ya know whtas gonna happen? Its going to go back to the way it was before Microsoft hyped the industry out of control. The corporate sites are gonna come back to the middle. The fan sites will gain hits from the hard core fans because it will be harder for them to get their info. The amount of developers in the world is going to decrease. And everything will be happy in PGC land. =P
Post by: Cap on November 12, 2003, 02:39:28 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Right, the only difference is in the multiplayer. Let's completely forget the whole deal about 2 riders per cart and the strategy you need to use them effectively. ::rollseyes:: Honestly, you guys put too much stock into reviews, especially negative ones among a plethora of positive ones.
i'm assuming that this was meant in response to my post. i might be missing something, but the two riders and the stategy in using them would seem to be most important in multiplayer. i'm sure it factors into the single player game as well, but not as much as it would the multiplayer aspect of the game. as i said, i'll wait to play the game before i make my final judgement, but i dont see it really changing the one player game that much. i was just hoping for an improved single player experience(not really in the gameplay itself, but in the game modes), and it really doesnt seem to be there.
i also didnt consider igns review negative. while they did tend to focus on the negative aspects of the game it basically scored an 8, which i dont consider a bad score.
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 12, 2003, 02:48:14 PM
Post by: Grey Ninja on November 12, 2003, 03:00:08 PM
Post by: Molobert on November 12, 2003, 03:04:53 PM
That's partly true, the characters actually don't affect driving - the kart does. The strategy is in choosing characters for their special items and for their karts, because big characters can't drive in small karts.
As for the IGN review, it is a little disappointing, but of course I'm still getting the game and I'm sure it will be awesome. You guys should see the backlash on the IGN boards - in the Mario Kart review thread there were 1300+ posts posted in less than a day.
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 12, 2003, 03:07:45 PM
Post by: CaseyRyback on November 12, 2003, 03:29:22 PM
Online play for the GCN is great because it will increase their systems clout and erase some of the image they have as being a kid friendly company thats behind the times. this means more people will buy a GCN and in turn third party publishers will stop canceling games. These companies will see that there is an online market for the GCN and start spending time by making better ports(look at how the GCN is the only one not online). Also when you give people the ability to play online it adds a new dimension in that people who do play online will want to buy games that play online(anyone who owns an Xbox knows that it takes a lot of live games to truely enjoy the service)
Also online play does not make you feel bad when you lose. I lose all the time at Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield, but after awhile I did get good and even after getting good its still 50/50 that I will kill everyone or be the first one down. Online gaming is more about a community and getting to know people and have fun playing aganist them. Online may not be fun the first time butif you keep playing with the dam people you get to know them well and you get better together.
Post by: mjbd on November 12, 2003, 04:00:17 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 12, 2003, 04:31:31 PM
Post by: CaseyRyback on November 12, 2003, 06:31:43 PM
Post by: Bloodworth on November 12, 2003, 07:28:03 PM
