Post by: Pryopizm on April 10, 2007, 11:25:08 AM
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/reviewArt.cfm?artid=13300
Welcome to the most incomprehensible golf course in the world. It’s a mixture of real world physics and fantastic environments. Japanese characters mesh seamlessly with an ancient Scottish sport using ridiculous items such as bombs for golf balls and baseball bats for clubs. Logic is thrown out the window and so is the fun. Welcome to Pangya, home of Super Swing Golf.
Yes, there’s no fun to be found in the golf courses of Pangya. Fun left town and was replaced with a user-hateful interface; a control system that’s so far beyond wonky that there’s no more wonk to be found, only despair; and hydrocephalic characters who are so super-deformed that bad little boys and girls everywhere who are punished with this game will suffer nightmares well into their adult life.
However, to its credit, the game actively believes it’s fun. Right down to its insipid story, characters, dialogue, overwrought emotions (repeated ad nauseum due to lack of animation variety), and heartfelt belief that you will give a damn about Scout, not to mention the assortment of freaks he meets along the way. And the courses would be pretty amazing if Mario Golf’s fantastic environments weren’t so incredibly lush in comparison. The game dilutes its own attempt at charm by being far too straightforward at golf.
Hope you enjoy ciphers, this game is full of them. In fact, you’ll be playing as one for a good long while as Scout. Scout is the protagonist of Super Swing Golf’s main single-player mode. He’s a generic anime design that works as your primary avatar. He has no personality, lacks style (unless you change his hair color and clothes) and zero charisma. Ah, but this is a golf game, who cares about all that? Apparently someone does, or anime golf games wouldn’t exist at all.
In fact, I’m going to digress for a moment here and ponder the existence of this game. Is it made with the solo player in mind or as a multiplayer game? This question is due, in part, to one of Super Swing’s major problems. You have one whole character to choose from in the beginning, and the others are available through a tediously slow unlocking process. Right out of the box, the only way to tell the difference between two avatars is the "1P" and "2P" hovering over their heads.
So this game is primarily for single player, right? I couldn’t tell you. In fact, it raises a number of unanswerable questions. Why can’t I make my own character? Why is there a golf genre smack in the middle of Mario Golf games and Tiger Woods losing all the strengths of either game and suffering every weakness? What if Mario Golf wasn’t fast paced, silly, and charming? What if Tiger Woods had no variety or choice? The answer, friends, is Super Swing Golf.
Touching back on the controls for a moment, no matter how the controller is tilted, the club is pulled back. That’s realism, folks. One would think that in order to hit the ball straight, the controller is swung down straight. Truth is, only the developers know. It’s impossible to gauge what was done either consistently or inconsistently from any other shot. Since the movement isn’t 1:1, correction is painfully difficult.
The best part, however, is fighting the interface. The Wii was made to simplify. Super Swing complicates. Sometimes the controller is a club; other times it’s a mouse. In itself it’s slightly cumbersome, but possibly a necessary evil since other factors such as club selection and positioning are involved. However, not everything is available on the screen. For example, how do you access the map? There’s no mini-map to click on the screen to enlarge. Hit the number one button on the bottom of the controller instead. Make sure it’s hit twice, or else the game will simply move to free camera mode. Okay, now that we’re on the map screen, let’s play "Find the cup." Don’t see it? Well, hit the B button and wave the pointer around to move the camera wildly up and down the course until you get lucky and find the flag. Now this is a game!
No need to ponder the target audience anymore. The answer is obvious: no one. Super Swing Golf is obnoxious, gimmicky, featureless, and, despite its best attempts otherwise, humorless.
Pros:
Cons:
Graphics: 5.0
The art design is generic and seems to ape Mario Golf and anime themes equally. In neither aspect is it particularly successful. There are no glaring graphical difficulties; however, there’s nothing particularly appealing or eye popping.
Sound: 2.0
The sound effects are serviceable, but the music is gratingly bad and cheesy. I’m sure the cheese was intentional, but it didn’t need to be so terrible.
Control: 3.0
At best it works in the abstract. At worst it’s incomprehensible and frustrating. And neither aspect, either using the pointer through the menus or swinging the controller like a club, works well. On top of that, correction is difficult since there’s little way to distinguish what was done from one swing to the next.
Gameplay: 3.0
Assuming you have grasped the control scheme, unlocked all the different characters, and mastered all the courses, you have only succeeded in winning a battle of attrition. And those are never fun.
Lastability: 2.0
Technically, there’s enough to do here to last you several hours. But, in the same vein, you could spend several hours watching Bill Cosby movies. Neither is recommended.
Final: 3.5
This game makes a bad first impression with your choice of only one character, and it only goes downhill from there. Don’t bother.
Post by: Kairon on April 10, 2007, 11:44:11 AM
...
You can start out as Hanna as well!
...
yeah...
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on April 10, 2007, 11:55:37 AM
Post by: Artimus on April 10, 2007, 11:58:37 AM
Post by: Kairon on April 10, 2007, 12:11:20 PM
I should know. My roommate and his girlfriend are addicted to Albatross.
That explains a lot of the game's bare-bonesities, even though it doesn't excuse them. Korean MMOs are basically disguised grindfests where you earn points to buy clothes... and they are highly profitable for the developers. Just look at Gunbound!
Also, the reviewer should swing with the top of the controller facing forward at the lowest point. I thought the game was frustrating beyond belief until I realized that the developers of this game had NO IDEA WHATSOEVER as to how you actually hold and swing a golf club.
Oh, but I agree COMPLETELY on the interface complaints.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: ShyGuy on April 10, 2007, 12:13:46 PM
..Wait this was a serious review? And it is intentionally four months late?
I guess this balances out TYP's glowing Paper Mario review.
Much love to Stan. Way to combat the loli epidemic
Post by: NWR_pap64 on April 10, 2007, 12:41:42 PM
Seriously, he loves both the PC version and the Wii version to DEATH. Hell, even a friend of his (the "binhqx" guy SB quoted on his sig), came to the conclusion that the controls are affected by how YOU play and that the engine isn't really broken. He even went as far as to say "Maybe it isn't the game, its the players".
Post by: NintendoTrekker18 on April 10, 2007, 12:47:57 PM
I picked up Super Swing Golf for $29.99 at Best Buy recently, and have enjoyed it. True, it doesn't have 16x9 support, the load times are a bit lengthy, and the lack of character creation and variety from the get-go is regretable, but it's fun.
I love the creativity of the courses, the brightly-designed characters, and the sound too. The gameplay is quite good, and of all the golf games I've played (including both Mario Golf titles), it controls the best, blowing the oft-ankward Wii Sports: Golf out of the water, in my opinion. I haven't played Tiger '07, so I can't comment if that is better, worse, or just about the same.
Note to Nintendo: bring back the letter/number Mini-Golf from Mario Golf 64. Or...virtual console! ^_^
Post by: Ian Sane on April 10, 2007, 12:50:45 PM
If the review gives a high score everyone says "good job" or perhaps suggests that ths score should be higher.
If the review gives a mediocre to poor score tons of people protest it and accuse the reviewer of not getting it or being biased and that reviews mean nothing and that we should all buy every game ever to exist to get an accurate point of view and even then if we hate it we're wrong because the game was better than expected or the concept in theory sounds good or it was better than other really crappy Sonic games.
Every Wii game is awesome. We get it.
Post by: ShyGuy on April 10, 2007, 12:59:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Every Wii game is awesome. We get it.
Finally!
Post by: NWR_pap64 on April 10, 2007, 01:01:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Every Wii review gets the same response on this forum.
If the review gives a high score everyone says "good job" or perhaps suggests that ths score should be higher.
If the review gives a mediocre to poor score tons of people protest it and accuse the reviewer of not getting it or being biased and that reviews mean nothing and that we should all buy every game ever to exist to get an accurate point of view and even then if we hate it we're wrong because the game was better than expected or the concept in theory sounds good or it was better than other really crappy Sonic games.
Every Wii game is awesome. We get it.
I agree that sometimes these responses are fueled by fan hype and such, but are you saying that ALL the people that disagree with these reviews are just being blind fanboys?
If people played the game, enjoyed it and didn't have any issue with it they have the right to call out that the review is too unfair or too harsh and even say "you didn't get it".
Second, you haven't even bothered getting a Wii or even trying out some Wii games. How can YOU give credit to NWR when you don't even know if what they are saying is right and wrong?
I'll admit that I haven't played all of the Wii games NWR has reviewed, but its my belief that they been AWFULLY harsh lately, to the point where they are giving solid games scores that are better suited for games like Zoey 101 and Drake and Josh.
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on April 10, 2007, 01:41:46 PM
This score seems alarmingly low given the average rating, but I assure you Stan spent enough time with the game to form a solid opinion of the game. I thought about picking this title up--not so sure any more.
Post by: Blue Plant on April 10, 2007, 01:49:48 PM
Post by: Kairon on April 10, 2007, 01:56:23 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: NWR_pap64 on April 10, 2007, 02:04:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: TheYoungerPlumber
Probably just because no one cared about Billy & Mandy.
capamerica did
.
Post by: Plugabugz on April 10, 2007, 02:12:35 PM
As in, make an opinion and the local populace rage and protest.
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on April 10, 2007, 02:14:18 PM
Post by: capamerica on April 10, 2007, 02:15:14 PM
You review is hands down the WORST review I have ever read.
I uses to look at PlanetGameCube for accurate reviews but they have really gone down the toilet. I see more and more reviews that i GREATLY disagree with. This was the final nail in the coffin for me.
Post by: Smash_Brother on April 10, 2007, 02:15:15 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Every Wii review gets the same response on this forum.
Most reviews are equally divided among the fanbase, even the ones which receive incredibly high scores.
You're just using this as one more excuse to squint, grimace and grunt out yet another pile of anti-Nintendoism because the GC killed and ate your entire family.
We get it.
Post by: Smash_Brother on April 10, 2007, 02:15:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: pap64 I agree that sometimes these responses are fueled by fan hype and such, but are you saying that ALL the people that disagree with these reviews are just being blind fanboys?
Don't encourage him.
Ian is a Nintendo doomsday forecaster, hence why he jumps on any situation where he can vent his angst about how Nintendo raped his soul. He probably has a picture of the GC hanging on his wall somewhere with the words "NEVER FORGET" emblazoned over it.
Seriously, Ian, I used to respect you, but if there's one thing I can't stand, it's uninformed people making uninformed opinions and until you actually OWN a Wii, you'd do your credibility a favor by refraining from commenting on Wii reviews and the Wii in general from now on.
Post by: vudu on April 10, 2007, 02:19:43 PM
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on April 10, 2007, 02:22:53 PM
EDIT: AH yes. With That other (totally absurd) review from Stan linked, I do think I must disagree with this review, even without playing it. Still, capamerica, sheesh.
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on April 10, 2007, 02:24:14 PM
Post by: Saturn2888 on April 10, 2007, 02:28:03 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on April 10, 2007, 02:33:50 PM
The first time was when it was being played in my own living room when a bunch of friends came over and we were playing it as a group.
The other time was when my ex-GF's brother bought it and she, her brother and FATHER played and loved it.
Her father is a factory worker and not the type to take over-the-top games with a grain of salt, so if he could play and enjoy it without issue, I don't see why anyone else would have a problem with the characters in it.
Post by: JackieFrosty on April 10, 2007, 02:50:58 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upDaVeDj6A0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZxZxwHGXk0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shvgriTgvJo
along with some shots that can be done with some practice...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI9pchN8RTw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH8HgkXwzik
All the SSG shots that I've done while playing the game can also be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=JackieFrosty
Finally, here's how to swing, for those that think the motion control is really clunky.
http://s172.photobucket.com/albums/w11/JackieFrosty_photos/
It's really not as hard as the review says. I don't see how others can see otherwise. Maybe, it's because a real golf swing is more continuous and real golfers can't get it? I dunno. All I know is that it's really easy for me.
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on April 10, 2007, 03:08:04 PM
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on April 10, 2007, 03:14:27 PM
And SUPER for the record I thought your FF:CC review was spot on, it was fun for the first couple of hours but ultimately it got boring, and frustrating later on where people lost interest of it I suppose.
Post by: Kairon on April 10, 2007, 03:18:41 PM
Seriously people, have you guys played Ragnarok online? Gun Bound? Albatross 18? Maple Story? ... ANY KOREAN GAME AT ALL?!?!?!? They're all like this... and they're all amazingly successful even though, when viewed under traditional lenses, they have no right to be. My roommate and his girlfriend have been playing the PC version of this game for 2 months and are ADDICTED. It sickens me, but its the truth. Korea is destroying gaming as we know it.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on April 10, 2007, 03:27:12 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on April 10, 2007, 03:34:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: S-U-P-E-R
I wish I had gotten this many people crying about my FFCC review a while back, but it turns out nobody cared about that game. Congrats Stan!
For the record, I'm more pissed at Ian than Stan. If Stan didn't like it, it's no skin off my back but at least he played the game so he's entitled to an opinion on it.
Ian rags on the Wii all the time despite not owning one and making no attempts to own one.
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on April 10, 2007, 03:36:47 PM
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on April 10, 2007, 03:38:48 PM
I'm holding onto it for Resident Evils, though. Maybe that will tide me over
Post by: Kairon on April 10, 2007, 03:55:54 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Pryopizm on April 10, 2007, 04:23:35 PM
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on April 10, 2007, 04:45:05 PM
I know Stan's overall score for this game is much lower than the average. But his main criticism is that the controls don't work, and in a golf game, I think that is certainly enough to cripple the entire experience. The many other problems he mentions are minor in comparison, but they add up too. Sure, it's possible that he simply doesn't know how to play the game correctly, but you know, he is our Sports Editor and is very experienced in many, many kinds of sports video games, including golf. I think it's far more likely that other reviewers were very forgiving towards this game because it came out close to Wii's launch and offers a lot more content than Wii Sports golf, which is hardly the best mini-game in that collection.
Post by: that Baby guy on April 10, 2007, 04:56:04 PM
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on April 10, 2007, 04:56:14 PM
Before I close Excel...
The mean score of my reviews (N=141) is 7.53. The median score is 8. The mode (most common) score is 9. Standard deviation is 1.66.
Wow, maybe I need to be harsher in the future? Or maybe I need to stop hogging all the good games. :-)
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on April 10, 2007, 05:00:16 PM
Post by: capamerica on April 10, 2007, 05:03:45 PM
The controls are perfectly fine with it, Everyone who I have gotten to play Super Swing Golf with have all been able to pick it up and play it fine, Everyone from my 8 year old sister to both my Mom and Dad who both haven't touched a game since Super Mario Bros 3. On top of that I'm the only one in my immediate family who has ever played golf and Super Swing feels VERY accurate to the real thing, even more so the Tiger Woods. Heck I've even had the guy who works at the local golf shop try it out and he was amazed at how accurate the game was. (Yes I did in fact bring the system over for him to try.) I didn't let him try Wii Sports Golf since I find that version to be painful to play.
I am very displeased with the review and it will stain NWR's reputation for fair and good game reviews.
You should feel very disappointed that a review of such poor quality is disgracing NWR.
Post by: Kairon on April 10, 2007, 05:05:04 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on April 10, 2007, 05:08:29 PM
However, more than the score, I'd complain about comments like calling the characters "hydrocephalic". On a site which has reviewed so many Naruto games, I find it hard to believe that he doesn't know that the game is supposed to be ANIME styled so I can't see the reason for the jab at the game's art style.
Post by: Pryopizm on April 10, 2007, 05:13:45 PM
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on April 10, 2007, 05:14:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: capamerica
You should feel very disappointed that a review of such poor quality is disgracing NWR.
No. You can feel disappointed in whatever you want, and I'm not going to argue with you over that. But don't tell me what I should feel disappointed about. If I didn't think this review was up to our standards then it would not be on the site right now. My word is the law when it comes to reviews on this site. It doesn't go public until I'm happy with it.
Post by: Caliban on April 10, 2007, 05:18:57 PM
Post by: capamerica on April 10, 2007, 05:33:38 PM
Yahoo! Video Games - 9.0
Game Informer - 8.2
GameFAQs (Avr) - 8.1 (10, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 7, 7, 4)
Game Informer - 8.0
G4 / Tech TV - 8.0
GameSpy.com - 8.0
IGN Readers (107 people) - 8.0
GameSpot Readers (270 People) -8.0
Deeko.com - 8.0
GameTrailers - 7.5
eToychest - 7.5
IGN.com - 7.3
Worth Playing - 7.2
GameZone Online - 7.1
GameDaily - 7.0
GameSpot - 6.8
GamePro - 6.0
1UP.com - 5.5
-----------------
Press Avr - 7.4
-----------------
NWR - 3.5?????
I'm sorry but something is SERIOUSLY WRONG here.
When there is such a large difference between everyone else and NWR review something is wrong and the review should be given a second look.
Post by: mottsc on April 10, 2007, 05:48:40 PM
Post by: wandering on April 10, 2007, 05:57:16 PM
Post by: Kairon on April 10, 2007, 06:00:20 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on April 10, 2007, 06:01:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mottsc
I wasn't planning on getting the game even before this review, but I just want to say that I appreciate that there is a site that isn't afraid to rate a game below 5.0 if they feel like it deserves it.
Well mottsc if you judge a review just by the number then its pointless, you should see why the numeral score was issued by the content depicted in the review. And Johnnyboy with all due respect I think you do a wonderful job managing reviews since PGC and NWR has a lot of worthwhile reviews that are worth reading and about 90% of the reviews you guys put out justifies and tells the reader why this game is worth it or why should the readers be aware and skip it, but the SSG review just sounded like one big rant that just made no sense at all to me. Also the scores assigned to each respective category don't feel right because the game is more polished than to warrant scores that would equal to a broken game thats essentially unplayable or close to the point that it is unplayable.
Post by: that Baby guy on April 10, 2007, 06:02:27 PM
Post by: Kairon on April 10, 2007, 06:24:57 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: that Baby guy on April 10, 2007, 06:31:25 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on April 10, 2007, 06:34:32 PM
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on April 10, 2007, 06:46:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
NWR is the new ign.
I'm not sure if this is meant to be an insult or compliment, but I am curious as to how you came to this strange conclusion. I don't see what this review has to do with IGN or anything people have been saying about IGN's reviews of Wii games.
Post by: Kairon on April 10, 2007, 07:02:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Jonnyboy117Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
NWR is the new ign.
I'm not sure if this is meant to be an insult or compliment, but I am curious as to how you came to this strange conclusion. I don't see what this review has to do with IGN or anything people have been saying about IGN's reviews of Wii games.
3.5 is the new 7.9, the score IGN gave Double Dash.
Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
It's got Golf in the title. Or should I assume the golf only a codeword for something more sinister?
Play Korean MMOs like Gunbound, RO, Albatross on the PC, most free Korean MMORPGs, etc. and you'll understand.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Ceric on April 11, 2007, 03:10:32 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Lord_die_seis
I can safely assume this is the worst NWR review ever. I can't wait to see Bill's reaction after he reads it. Seriously I think you need to re-evaluate the game Stan and at least give this game some more time. A 3.5 usually tells that the game is practically unplayable the sound and controls deserve a far better score than a 2.0 and a 3.0 . While I respect NWR and their staff reviews but recently I think these reviews have gone down hill.
Agree.
Stan your reviewing prowless has just lost most of my respect. Sorry.
Quote
Our large staff and open review policy allow us to review many games in a short period of time, but not at the expense of review quality, consistency, or integrity.
Quote
Nintendo World Report reviews include the body text, pros and cons, scores in five individual categories, and a final score, all on the first page.
If you don't like the swinging mechanics then use the button mode. Thats whats I did. You can also buy multiple characters.
Quote
All NWR game articles, reviews included, undergo a thorough editing process to ensure they meet some basic guidelines, but each review ultimately remains the opinion of the individual reviewer.
Lately I wonder what happened to this. The reviews are coming out more and more ranty as late.
Post by: mottsc on April 11, 2007, 04:16:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Lord_die_seisQuote
Originally posted by: mottsc
I wasn't planning on getting the game even before this review, but I just want to say that I appreciate that there is a site that isn't afraid to rate a game below 5.0 if they feel like it deserves it.
Well mottsc if you judge a review just by the number then its pointless, you should see why the numeral score was issued by the content depicted in the review. And Johnnyboy with all due respect I think you do a wonderful job managing reviews since PGC and NWR has a lot of worthwhile reviews that are worth reading and about 90% of the reviews you guys put out justifies and tells the reader why this game is worth it or why should the readers be aware and skip it, but the SSG review just sounded like one big rant that just made no sense at all to me. Also the scores assigned to each respective category don't feel right because the game is more polished than to warrant scores that would equal to a broken game thats essentially unplayable or close to the point that it is unplayable.
Post by: Nephilim on April 11, 2007, 04:56:42 AM
Post by: ShyGuy on April 11, 2007, 04:59:02 AM
Post by: Ceric on April 11, 2007, 05:48:16 AM
Post by: vudu on April 11, 2007, 07:42:30 AM
QuoteSorry to beat a dead horse, but I just want to point out that according to RFN episodes 45 and 46 Stan hasn't even touched his Wii in months. He stated that he's been addicted to WoW and doesn't even have his Wii hooked up. Episode 46 was recoded on Sunday, April 1st. This review was posted on Tuesday, April 10. I'm assuming that there's probably a day or two for Jonny to approve the review. So that means that Stan had a little over a week to play the game and write the review. Last I checked, Stan had a full time job, which would probably prevent him from spending dozens of hours over this week to play the game. That doesn't exactly give the man a lot of time to become accustomed to the controls, especially if he hasn't played any other Wii games enough to even become familiar with the remote in the first place.
Originally posted by: Jonnyboy117
Sure, it's possible that [Stan] simply doesn't know how to play the game correctly, but you know, he is our Sports Editor and is very experienced in many, many kinds of sports video games, including golf.
I haven't played SSG, so I can't personally say whether the controls are borked or not. But I can say that this time line (assuming I'm right) doesn't give Stan adequate time to fully form an opinion on the game.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on April 11, 2007, 07:51:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: vuduQuoteSorry to beat a dead horse, but I just want to point out that according to RFN episodes 45 and 46 Stan hasn't even touched his Wii in months. He stated that he's been addicted to WoW and doesn't even have his Wii hooked up. Episode 46 was recoded on Sunday, April 1st. This review was posted on Tuesday, April 10. I'm assuming that there's probably a day or two for Jonny to approve the review. So that means that Stan had a little over a week to play the game and write the review. Last I checked, Stan had a full time job, which would probably prevent him from spending dozens of hours over this week to play the game. That doesn't exactly give the man a lot of time to become accustomed to the controls, especially if he hasn't played any other Wii games enough to even become familiar with the remote in the first place.
Originally posted by: Jonnyboy117
Sure, it's possible that [Stan] simply doesn't know how to play the game correctly, but you know, he is our Sports Editor and is very experienced in many, many kinds of sports video games, including golf.
I haven't played SSG, so I can't personally say whether the controls are borked or not. But I can say that this time line (assuming I'm right) doesn't give Stan adequate time to fully form an opinion on the game.
*Insert Phoenix Wright music here
Post by: Smash_Brother on April 11, 2007, 08:05:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pryopizm
Dude, even for anime, they were hydrocephalic.
Um, no?
Heads all look fine to me for normal artwork, forget anime.
If you're going to call these characters "hydrocephalic", then you must also say the same about Mario (no, not the user):
Mario's head is the same size as 1/3 of his body. That's the standard ratio for newborn infants, FYI.
I think it's time to give this review the "fine tooth comb" treatment. Let's begin:
Quote
Welcome to the most incomprehensible golf course in the world. It’s a mixture of real world physics and fantastic environments.
I'm surprised if anyone can even continue reading after this point. If you have an issue with the mingling of reality and fantasy then you probably shouldn't be playing video games, watching movies or reading books. In fact, I think documentaries are the only source of entertainment which won't irk you.
The review has only seen two sentences and you're already scraping the bottom of the complaint barrel.
Quote
Japanese characters mesh seamlessly with an ancient Scottish sport using ridiculous items such as bombs for golf balls and baseball bats for clubs. Logic is thrown out the window and so is the fun. Welcome to Pangya, home of Super Swing Golf.
Again, fantastic environments, concepts and ideas are commonplace in gaming.
You want logic thrown out the window? Play Tiger Woods 2007 where, through use of telekinetic powers or maybe the force, the player can push a direction on the D-pad and shake the Wiimote to manipulate the direction of the ball after they've hit it. SSG employed special golf balls which explode on contact, but it was never pretentious enough to employ telekinesis.
Quote
Yes, there’s no fun to be found in the golf courses of Pangya. Fun left town and was replaced with a user-hateful interface; a control system that’s so far beyond wonky that there’s no more wonk to be found, only despair; and hydrocephalic characters who are so super-deformed that bad little boys and girls everywhere who are punished with this game will suffer nightmares well into their adult life.
For starters, I've seen rooms full of people have fun with SSG. People who are NOT avid gamers got the controls down pat in a few minutes, and that includes placing spin on the ball and selecting special shots.
We even had a buddy who plays golf and he was able to get a Pangya on most every hit (I don't remember him hooking or slicing even once).
As for the characters, you are the first person I've ever heard complain about their appearance.
Quote
However, to its credit, the game actively believes it’s fun. Right down to its insipid story, characters, dialogue, overwrought emotions (repeated ad nauseum due to lack of animation variety), and heartfelt belief that you will give a damn about Scout, not to mention the assortment of freaks he meets along the way. And the courses would be pretty amazing if Mario Golf’s fantastic environments weren’t so incredibly lush in comparison. The game dilutes its own attempt at charm by being far too straightforward at golf.
You can press a button to skip the cutscenes if you don't like them.
As for the courses, a quick look at the collection of screenshots at Gamespy reveals some genuinely lush and interesting environs, and that includes deserts, tropical islands, windmills lit by sunset, castles and even an aircraft carrier. It has a grand total of 11 courses, each with 18 holes, for a total of 198 holes, all of which were full of obstacles, foliage and were often dramatically lit due to a variety in lighting, including twilight and sunset courses.
By comparison, Mario Golf had 6 courses with 18 holes each for a total of 108 and looked pretty bland except for the irritating placement of mushrooms.
Quote
Hope you enjoy ciphers, this game is full of them. In fact, you’ll be playing as one for a good long while as Scout. Scout is the protagonist of Super Swing Golf’s main single-player mode. He’s a generic anime design that works as your primary avatar. He has no personality, lacks style (unless you change his hair color and clothes) and zero charisma. Ah, but this is a golf game, who cares about all that? Apparently someone does, or anime golf games wouldn’t exist at all.
Actually, you can choose to play as the girl, Hannah, right off the bat as well.
And I find it funny that this setup irked you, considering the IDENTICAL character selection scenario didn't irk you in your "Mario Tennis: Power Tour" review:
The single player game (likes its GBC predecessor) is an RPG. You select your character (a boy or a girl), name him/her, and choose whether you’re right or left handed. The game begins in earnest at a central “home” area where you can save and switch between Singles or Doubles play. From then on, you’ll have certain stats to build, depending on the style of play you want to progress in, and you can balance that out by customizing your doubles partner’s stats in other fields.
By your own words, you select male or female, name and handedness, so why did SSG's presentation of an identical situation bother you but MT:PT's did not?
Also, both games feature RPG elements through upgrades, but at least SSG allows you to choose their clothing to customize how they look.
Quote
In fact, I’m going to digress for a moment here and ponder the existence of this game. Is it made with the solo player in mind or as a multiplayer game? This question is due, in part, to one of Super Swing’s major problems. You have one whole character to choose from in the beginning, and the others are available through a tediously slow unlocking process. Right out of the box, the only way to tell the difference between two avatars is the "1P" and "2P" hovering over their heads.
Aside from the fact that you unlock the other character (either Scout or Hannah) after playing the first story and that I've never seen anyone be confused about when it was their turn in this game, sure.
This is akin to complaining that all four players in SSBM can play as Ganondorf. Games have relied on the "1P, 2P" labels for years to aid in player differentiation. Trying to pin this on SSG as a fault is nitpicking.
Quote
So this game is primarily for single player, right? I couldn’t tell you. In fact, it raises a number of unanswerable questions. Why can’t I make my own character?
You couldn't do this in Mario Golf, either. Just because you're more acclimated to Mario than you are to Scout doesn't make SSG a worse game.
Quote
Why is there a golf genre smack in the middle of Mario Golf games and Tiger Woods losing all the strengths of either game and suffering every weakness?
This is entirely subjective on your part so I don't know what to say to it, but you do realize you can switch the control scheme to be identical to that of Mario Golf, right?
Quote
What if Mario Golf wasn’t fast paced, silly, and charming?
I'd consider buying it this gen instead of avoiding it due to regretting my decision to buy it last gen.
Quote
What if Tiger Woods had no variety or choice?
The only difference between SSG and TW2K7 is that TW lacks the special shots which can make or break a round in SSG but adds the telekinesis I mentioned earlier. That's about it. If character creation was that much of a pull for you, you would probably have missed it more in Mario Golf, especially considering Mario Golf on the GC doesn't have the RPG elements which SSG and TW both feature, mainly through earning money and using it to buy stat-boosting clothes for your character.
Quote
Touching back on the controls for a moment, no matter how the controller is tilted, the club is pulled back. That’s realism, folks. One would think that in order to hit the ball straight, the controller is swung down straight. Truth is, only the developers know. It’s impossible to gauge what was done either consistently or inconsistently from any other shot. Since the movement isn’t 1:1, correction is painfully difficult.
My golf-playing friend didn't have trouble with this. Also, I suspect that you fell into the same pitfall which you will likely do in TW2K7: when driving, hold the club at a 45° angle, not pointing straight down.
Quote
The best part, however, is fighting the interface. The Wii was made to simplify. Super Swing complicates. Sometimes the controller is a club; other times it’s a mouse. In itself it’s slightly cumbersome, but possibly a necessary evil since other factors such as club selection and positioning are involved. However, not everything is available on the screen. For example, how do you access the map? There’s no mini-map to click on the screen to enlarge. Hit the number one button on the bottom of the controller instead. Make sure it’s hit twice, or else the game will simply move to free camera mode. Okay, now that we’re on the map screen, let’s play "Find the cup." Don’t see it? Well, hit the B button and wave the pointer around to move the camera wildly up and down the course until you get lucky and find the flag. Now this is a game!
Again, people who should be far simpler in mind and gaming skill than you had no issue with this.
Quote
No need to ponder the target audience anymore. The answer is obvious: no one. Super Swing Golf is obnoxious, gimmicky, featureless, and, despite its best attempts otherwise, humorless.
This review is obnoxious, nitpicky, devoid of critical merit and likely inspired from personal issues happening at the time of its writing. Due to the sheer number of contradictions in your logic and opinions you've stated in other reviews, you clearly have some sort of angst against this game the likes of which can only be described as a vendetta.
If you want my first guess, I would lean towards the notion that someone who you've come to dislike greatly enjoyed this game, making it impossible for you to enjoy it and making the overly negative and exaggerated review you've given it a form of lashing out at them.
Don't fret, though. You're not the first person to attempt to pass off an angry, prejudiced opinion as a critique and you won't be the last.
Post by: Kairon on April 11, 2007, 08:05:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: pap64Quote
Originally posted by: vuduQuoteSorry to beat a dead horse, but I just want to point out that according to RFN episodes 45 and 46 Stan hasn't even touched his Wii in months. He stated that he's been addicted to WoW and doesn't even have his Wii hooked up. Episode 46 was recoded on Sunday, April 1st. This review was posted on Tuesday, April 10. I'm assuming that there's probably a day or two for Jonny to approve the review. So that means that Stan had a little over a week to play the game and write the review. Last I checked, Stan had a full time job, which would probably prevent him from spending dozens of hours over this week to play the game. That doesn't exactly give the man a lot of time to become accustomed to the controls, especially if he hasn't played any other Wii games enough to even become familiar with the remote in the first place.
Originally posted by: Jonnyboy117
Sure, it's possible that [Stan] simply doesn't know how to play the game correctly, but you know, he is our Sports Editor and is very experienced in many, many kinds of sports video games, including golf.
I haven't played SSG, so I can't personally say whether the controls are borked or not. But I can say that this time line (assuming I'm right) doesn't give Stan adequate time to fully form an opinion on the game.
*Insert Phoenix Wright music here
OOOHHH SNAP! It's on now!
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Kairon on April 11, 2007, 08:17:33 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
*Smash_Brother's Post*
...
You're not the first person to attempt to pass off an angry, prejudiced opinion as a critique and you won't be the last.
OH SNAP! It's on NOW!
... Btw, I'm in pretty much complete agreement with Smash bros.' post and his points. I share the same opinion, though I can't muster the same emphasis, on his critique of the review's text, which seemed so factually shallow and drew up some doublestandards. I agree 100%.
BUT, I have no issue with the final score. a 3.5 on NWR is about a 6.0 on a normal game site, by my guess, and I have no issue with this stripped down version of a Korean MMO golf-based grindfest getting such a score. In fact, I'm shocked to see it rated highly elsewhere.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on April 11, 2007, 08:22:02 AM
In fact, I wouldn't frown on NWR for giving low scores but glowing reviews just to get people to come here and read them. It would be like psyching people out and I'm cool with that.
Post by: Pale on April 11, 2007, 08:23:18 AM
People need to step back and realize that someone else's opinion is often just as valid as their own. Sometimes I wish these threads would read more like respectful disagreements and less like overly angsty rants.
I personally bought Pangya... played it for about 2 hours... felt the controls didn't work at all... never played it again. I obviously didn't play it as long as Stan did, but my experience leads me to believe he's correct. I'd be glad to read other opinions and take them seriously as long as they weren't "YOU SUCK AT REVIEWING GAMES AND ARE STUPID" responses. Maybe I'd even try the game again based on others' opinions if that were the case.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on April 11, 2007, 08:28:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pale
Wow.
People need to step back and realize that someone else's opinion is often just as valid as their own. Sometimes I wish these threads would read more like respectful disagreements and less like overly angsty rants.
I personally bought Pangya... played it for about 2 hours... felt the controls didn't work at all... never played it again. I obviously didn't play it as long as Stan did, but my experience leads me to believe he's correct. I'd be glad to read other opinions and take them seriously as long as they weren't "YOU SUCK AT REVIEWING GAMES AND ARE STUPID" responses. Maybe I'd even try the game again based on others' opinions if that were the case.
OK, I know you guys work together and defend each other when needed. But by the way you guys are defending the review it seems like you don't like it when the readers point out that the review is flawed and needs work.
I mean, SB didn't just say "This review sucks and is the phail". No. He read through it, pointed out the inconsistencies, rebutted his opinion in a serious and made clear why he believes the review is flawed.
Its true that people have the right to express how they feel and that their opinions is valid. But simply because their opinion is valid and they have the right to express it doesn't mean that we can't argue it or point out that its wrong in certain aspects.
In all honesty, it sounds like you guys are playing the victim card, saying how everyone is bullying you whenever you post a review that is way too lower or rather unfair. Like you guys don't want to hear what everyone else has to say about it. In fact, I am honestly surprised that you haven't eliminated the option of posting comments on the reviews since you don't want any kind of feedback, whether it be smart and serious or angst filled.
Post by: Smash_Brother on April 11, 2007, 08:35:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pale People need to step back and realize that someone else's opinion is often just as valid as their own.
An opinion is one thing, but an angry rant of a review deserves nothing but angry ranting criticism in response.
Stan could have explained respectfully and thoughtfully why he disliked the game, thus making not only a far stronger argument but making his review less vulnerable to the type of criticism it has seen so far.
There's no need to openly mock the game and the manner in which Stan has done so suggests that he holds a strong personal stake in his opinion. Also, Stan isn't the victim here: I refuse to believe that he didn't expect this level of backlash when he wrote the review in such an antagonistic way.
A proper review is the type which can only be rebutted with "I disagree with your opinion". Instead, I was able to point out several inconsistencies with his logic, one even based upon another review of his in which he glazes over the identical character selection scenario he chose to criticize in SSG.
To say the least, he could have handled this with more tact. It's possible to give a game a 3.5 and still maintain a reasonable level of journalistic integrity. I've seen low reviews on PGC in the past and they've been far better about explaining instead of antagonizing.
Again, Stan deserves the flame he gets. He'd be an immense hypocrite otherwise.
Post by: Pale on April 11, 2007, 08:49:41 AM
Anyway, this situation is a tough one. I understand what SB is saying in that Stan seemed to take the review quite lightly. I never know how to strike a balance between an entertaining and informative article. Obviously, you want the article to be both. When Jeff reviews some random licensed game, people laugh and think it's great. As soon as Stan takes a game that he apparently thinks is equally bad and writes a review in a similar style, people freak out in the forums. This obviously isn't because they don't like the style of writing, as Jeff often gets good feedback. It's because they don't like the style of writing when it is done to a game that they feel strongly about.
Stan attacked a game with some comic relief and so many of you seemed to make that personal. That just seems silly to me. He didn't attack you.
Post by: Ceric on April 11, 2007, 08:53:07 AM
Also, Pale I truly encourage you to switch to button controls and have another go at the game. It really has its good points.
Post by: Smash_Brother on April 11, 2007, 08:58:51 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pale Anyway, this situation is a tough one. I understand what SB is saying in that Stan seemed to take the review quite lightly. I never know how to strike a balance between an entertaining and informative article. Obviously, you want the article to be both. When Jeff reviews some random licensed game, people laugh and think it's great. As soon as Stan takes a game that he apparently thinks is equally bad and writes a review in a similar style, people freak out in the forums. This obviously isn't because they don't like the style of writing, as Jeff often gets good feedback. It's because they don't like the style of writing when it is done to a game that they feel strongly about.
I won't speak for others, but I've never personally cared for the "vulture" mentality, that being the tendency to assail something once it becomes "acceptable" to do so. It's a behavior forumers frequently exhibit and I've spent a great deal of time calling people on it.
The only reason I say anything about it in this review is because I've played the game. I didn't like the game THAT much, honestly, but I thought it was a fun distraction which I could handle in small doses and frequently did.
Cap loved the game which is why he was so vehement in defending it (returning Stan's flame), but I was just calling out the inconsistencies and contradictions of the review because I had played the game with a neutral take on it but I disagreed not with the score or his opinion but his means of expressing it.
Reviewers are journalists, not satirists. If someone wants to write entertaining reviews about bad products, create a site accordingly and do so there.
Post by: vudu on April 11, 2007, 09:08:43 AM
QuoteWhich reminds me, Stan also said he really liked Kid Icarus. Perhaps this is why Pale feels the need to support this review.
Originally posted by: Pale
I try to say when I disagree (like me insisting that Kid Icarus get the recommendation it did).
Post by: Pale on April 11, 2007, 09:11:51 AM
Post by: ShyGuy on April 11, 2007, 09:59:21 AM
Post by: Terranigma Freak on April 11, 2007, 10:14:03 AM
Oh and one more thing. It is my opinion that the earth is flat and you can't tell me I'm wrong.
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on April 11, 2007, 10:20:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Was the staff really surprised at this reaction? Seriously?
When I heard about the score, I knew Stan was going to get some hate, because I know the game has some fans on this board. But I honestly thought there would just be a civilized disagreement, not a condemnation of his skills as a reviewer and insults hurled at the website for "going downhill." I don't have any problems with people asking for an explanation on his review points - that's part of the gig. But if you really think there's bias or malice or any sort of foul play involved here, I don't know what to tell you - and it's stuff like this that I take extremely personally.
To be frank, I expected more from some of you.
EDIT: This isn't aimed at all of you - some of you are offering constructive and totally understandable debates, and that's not at all what's bothering me.
Post by: Ceric on April 11, 2007, 10:27:56 AM
Not to mention that salt in the wound is how long it took for this review to come out to find out that it seems the game was not played that much.
Post by: Artimus on April 11, 2007, 10:36:02 AM
Post by: NWR_pap64 on April 11, 2007, 11:45:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
All opinions are not equally valid. If that were true they would be equally invalid as well. Some opinions (i.e. better researched, considered and qualified ones) are superior to others. A person who hates golf games, for instance, does not hold an equal opinion to someone who likes some golf games. Someone who hates Nintendo does not give an equal opinion when reviewing a game to someone who judges games individual, not by company. I don't meant to imply this review holds a lesser opinion (never played the game, never intend to) but please don't say "all opinions are equally valid" because that's very elementary school.
QFT
Frankly, it feels like the NWR staff doesn't want ANY type of opinion or negative feedback. The minute it happens they put up a shield saying "Its our opinion! This review was written under the NWR rules! Deal with it!", shunning even the valid opinions.
Its ALMOST getting to the point where discussion of reviews isn't allowed at the site in fear that everyone will bring up discussions like this.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 11, 2007, 11:48:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: pap64Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
All opinions are not equally valid. If that were true they would be equally invalid as well. Some opinions (i.e. better researched, considered and qualified ones) are superior to others. A person who hates golf games, for instance, does not hold an equal opinion to someone who likes some golf games. Someone who hates Nintendo does not give an equal opinion when reviewing a game to someone who judges games individual, not by company. I don't meant to imply this review holds a lesser opinion (never played the game, never intend to) but please don't say "all opinions are equally valid" because that's very elementary school.
QFT
Frankly, it feels like the NWR staff doesn't want ANY type of opinion or negative feedback. The minute it happens they put up a shield saying "Its our opinion! This review was written under the NWR rules! Deal with it!", shunning even the valid opinions.
Its ALMOST getting to the point where discussion of reviews isn't allowed at the site in fear that everyone will bring up discussions like this.
Then again there are times where people complain about a negative review when they haven't even played the game. Wish I could recall which individuals do that though
Post by: NWR_pap64 on April 11, 2007, 11:53:26 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenixQuote
Originally posted by: pap64Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
All opinions are not equally valid. If that were true they would be equally invalid as well. Some opinions (i.e. better researched, considered and qualified ones) are superior to others. A person who hates golf games, for instance, does not hold an equal opinion to someone who likes some golf games. Someone who hates Nintendo does not give an equal opinion when reviewing a game to someone who judges games individual, not by company. I don't meant to imply this review holds a lesser opinion (never played the game, never intend to) but please don't say "all opinions are equally valid" because that's very elementary school.
QFT
Frankly, it feels like the NWR staff doesn't want ANY type of opinion or negative feedback. The minute it happens they put up a shield saying "Its our opinion! This review was written under the NWR rules! Deal with it!", shunning even the valid opinions.
Its ALMOST getting to the point where discussion of reviews isn't allowed at the site in fear that everyone will bring up discussions like this.
Then again there are times where people complain about a negative review when they haven't even played the game. Wish I could recall which individuals do that though
Golden, cut the sarcastic crap out, OK?
I know I haven't played the games myself, but I highly trust the gamers and friend that have played the game and believe them when they say they didn't encounter any issues.
Also, I end up agreeing with them nearly 80% of the time. For example, I thought Chibi Robo was cute, but nothing else. But SB and another friend kept praising it. It wasn't till I played it that I discovered they were right.
Like SB stated, I don't care if Stan hated the game or not, I simply didn't like how overly harsh and negative it was since the general opinion is that the game is solid and fun.
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on April 11, 2007, 11:56:46 AM
(Oh, and for the record, we gave Chibi Robo high marks.)
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 11, 2007, 11:59:56 AM
Post by: NWR_pap64 on April 11, 2007, 12:02:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ViewtifulGamer
Pap, read my last post. I don't have a single problem with people constructively disagreeing with Stan's review, or even wanting clarification. That's not what any of us are challenging here. It's the idea that the website or Stan has some sort of vendetta agains this game / Wii games, and that this article isn't valid because Stan "can't understand golf."
(Oh, and for the record, we gave Chibi Robo high marks.)
I read the post (and yeah, I appreciate that you guys gave Chibi Robo credit).
But still, what irks me is that whenever someone from the NWR staff tries to defend one of their reviews it sounds like no comment of it is valid.
Also, the way Unclebob suggested how the scores should be eliminated so that people read the review makes it sounds like nearly all review discussion should be forbidden or controlled.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on April 11, 2007, 12:12:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
I'm sorry but it still is pretty silly to get in a fit over a review score on a game you haven't even played, regardless of what your friends think. There are different opinions, and not everyone is going to think Super Swing Golf Pangya or Sonic is the next coming of gaming's golden age (Then again popular opinion is that both games are flawed, both hovering within the 70% range). It just seems silly to me to defend games based on what your friends say, I don't care how much you may agree, there is still a chance you may NOT and 2nd hand opinions based on what you hear, are not to be taken as seriously compared to someone who actually has experience something, whether it be a game, movie or other entertainment related thing.
Golden, I am NOT an idiot. Yes, I KNOW that simply because my friends liked a game it doesn't mean I will like it too. In fact, I really wanted to play Twilight Princess and before I played it my friends were hyping it. I decided to shun their opinion and wait till I played it in order to play it myself. It wasn't till a finally got it that I loved it and agreed/disagreed with what they said.
But still, if I feel someone is being overly harsh on a game that the general agreement is that its good or decent at least I can AT LEAST say "aren't you being a little harsh?".
Like I said, nearly 80% of the time my opinion of the game is very similar to those of my friends. Hell, I honestly thought that one of my friends loved Excite Truck a little too much, but once I played it I could see why he thought the game was really good and ended up loving it.
Going further back, at one point I thought SB was being WAY too hard on Elebits till I played it myself. My issues with the game were different from SB's (mainly that the game goes for far too long and gets tedious after a while), but we both agreed that the game wasn't all that good.
And finally, I know that you and I have argued this many a time. But what annoys me is the mean intention behind your comments.
I'm sorry, but when you post stuff like "Pap should be banned from comment on reviews" and such not only screams immaturity but that you have an issue with me that you are trying to vent through these NWR discussions.
I'm sorry if I am mistaken, but this is the impression I get. I have my reason of thinking, you have yours. LET IT BE.
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on April 11, 2007, 12:17:47 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 11, 2007, 12:28:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: pap64Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
I'm sorry but it still is pretty silly to get in a fit over a review score on a game you haven't even played, regardless of what your friends think. There are different opinions, and not everyone is going to think Super Swing Golf Pangya or Sonic is the next coming of gaming's golden age (Then again popular opinion is that both games are flawed, both hovering within the 70% range). It just seems silly to me to defend games based on what your friends say, I don't care how much you may agree, there is still a chance you may NOT and 2nd hand opinions based on what you hear, are not to be taken as seriously compared to someone who actually has experience something, whether it be a game, movie or other entertainment related thing.
Golden, I am NOT an idiot. Yes, I KNOW that simply because my friends liked a game it doesn't mean I will like it too. In fact, I really wanted to play Twilight Princess and before I played it my friends were hyping it. I decided to shun their opinion and wait till I played it in order to play it myself. It wasn't till a finally got it that I loved it and agreed/disagreed with what they said.
But still, if I feel someone is being overly harsh on a game that the general agreement is that its good or decent at least I can AT LEAST say "aren't you being a little harsh?".
Like I said, nearly 80% of the time my opinion of the game is very similar to those of my friends. Hell, I honestly thought that one of my friends loved Excite Truck a little too much, but once I played it I could see why he thought the game was really good and ended up loving it.
Going further back, at one point I thought SB was being WAY too hard on Elebits till I played it myself. My issues with the game were different from SB's (mainly that the game goes for far too long and gets tedious after a while), but we both agreed that the game wasn't all that good.
And finally, I know that you and I have argued this many a time. But what annoys me is the mean intention behind your comments.
I'm sorry, but when you post stuff like "Pap should be banned from comment on reviews" and such not only screams immaturity but that you have an issue with me that you are trying to vent through these NWR discussions.
I'm sorry if I am mistaken, but this is the impression I get. I have my reason of thinking, you have yours. LET IT BE.
Let's face you were being more than stating the reviewer was harsh, you accused them of playing the victim card and fearing the wrath of people who disagree. Personally I know little to nothing about this particular game, so I'm not going to state whether the review is justified or not (perhaps it is a bit harsh compared to the general reviewer consensus, but then again I've always been of the opinion that some bad or average games are getting more credit than they deserve. So it is nice to see a stricter perspective, even if I may not agree).
In regards to yourself, I don't have a problem with you, nor have I ever had a problem with you until perhas now. I'm always teasing people here and in real life, it is not a way of me "venting" it is what I do with people I like and respect (Just look at Kairon, I really love the guy and it shows because I tease him all the time. I even tease Smash). Heck I am always taking shots at Pittbboi and even him I don't have a big problem with him as a person, just his opinions (and even then I hold respect for him). Personally I just get fed up with people attacking others for something they haven't experienced, that is all. Whether it be yourself, accusing the reviewers here of hating on games you haven't played and not wanting to defend opinions, or Ian (probably the worse) bashing the Wii constantly when he himself most likely has 0 experience with the Wii.
Post by: Artimus on April 11, 2007, 12:40:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Let's face you were being more than stating the reviewer was harsh, you accused them of playing the victim card and fearing the wrath of people who disagree.
That really has nothing to do with whether or not he played the game. If anything that's actually something he can judge, seeing as it only requires one to read this thread.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 11, 2007, 12:46:19 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ArtimusQuote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Let's face you were being more than stating the reviewer was harsh, you accused them of playing the victim card and fearing the wrath of people who disagree.
That really has nothing to do with whether or not he played the game. If anything that's actually something he can judge, seeing as it only requires one to read this thread.
Well he did defend the game as well, but really that comment was more directed at why I thought he (and others) stepped over the line in regards to the reviewer. That is an insult, playing and simple, which I don't think the reviewers here deserve. As was mentioned previously in this thread, these kinds of insults and such seem to always be directed at those reviewers that give a game a lower score than the NWR community thinks it deserves. It turns into something more than disagreement, but questioning the integrity of the reviewer to accept criticism or that they have some agenda.
Post by: Artimus on April 11, 2007, 12:57:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenixQuote
Originally posted by: ArtimusQuote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Let's face you were being more than stating the reviewer was harsh, you accused them of playing the victim card and fearing the wrath of people who disagree.
That really has nothing to do with whether or not he played the game. If anything that's actually something he can judge, seeing as it only requires one to read this thread.
Well he did defend the game as well, but really that comment was more directed at why I thought he (and others) stepped over the line in regards to the reviewer. That is an insult, playing and simple, which I don't think the reviewers here deserve. As was mentioned previously in this thread, these kinds of insults and such seem to always be directed at those reviewers that give a game a lower score than the NWR community thinks it deserves. It turns into something more than disagreement, but questioning the integrity of the reviewer to accept criticism or that they have some agenda.
Well, that's really a risk you accept. I think some comments have been made that really raise questions about the review. Some were, indeed, way too harsh. But, as a reviewer, that's always the consequence of a negative review. If he wanted to avoid comments he could've written a really apologetic review and probably avoided them. Or he could've just written a straight forward review, which would've gotten flak for the scores but not a ton. Instead he wrote a very sarcastic, very snide review. I personally think if you're going to give a game a 3, you might as well be snide and amusing (I don't think the review actually is amusing, but the attempt is made). However, you need to know that the nastier you are to a game then anyone who likes that game is going to be just as nasty back.
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on April 11, 2007, 01:08:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: vudu
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I just want to point out that according to RFN episodes 45 and 46 Stan hasn't even touched his Wii in months. He stated that he's been addicted to WoW and doesn't even have his Wii hooked up. Episode 46 was recoded on Sunday, April 1st. This review was posted on Tuesday, April 10. I'm assuming that there's probably a day or two for Jonny to approve the review. So that means that Stan had a little over a week to play the game and write the review. Last I checked, Stan had a full time job, which would probably prevent him from spending dozens of hours over this week to play the game. That doesn't exactly give the man a lot of time to become accustomed to the controls, especially if he hasn't played any other Wii games enough to even become familiar with the remote in the first place.
I haven't played SSG, so I can't personally say whether the controls are borked or not. But I can say that this time line (assuming I'm right) doesn't give Stan adequate time to fully form an opinion on the game.
Cut the Phoenix Wright music. There is no conspiracy here. Stan got the game months ago, played it for a while, then had some family problems which kept him totally away from the site for a long time. When he finally came back, I told him that finishing this review should be a priority. His total useful time with the game is at least two weeks, not that it means anything. TYP reviewed Super Paper Mario in four or five days...does that make his review less valid? If I read a review and feel that the author didn't spend enough time with the game, I will say so, and I have done exactly that to many of our reviewers over the years. I expect games to be played thoroughly before they are reviewed.
Also, I think Pale's point about Jeff's reviews is very well made. We publish this kind of sarcastic, ranting review all the time...it's just that it's usually about games nobody cares about.
Smash_Bro has some valid criticisms of the way the review is written. I'm talking with Stan about revisiting one or two things in the game to make sure we have everything right. I am also considering having a second review written just to see what happens. I wonder, if the second person hates it too, will capamerica explode into a million tiny pieces?
Post by: Kairon on April 11, 2007, 01:20:46 PM
*sits back with some popcorn*
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 11, 2007, 01:23:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Cool! Can the second reviewer be someone with a background in Korean MMOs?
*sits back with some popcorn*
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Speak of the devil, I mention Kairon in my one of my posts in this thread and here he is! So I better poke fun at him. Let's see:
"Kairon is a Halo lover"
Post by: Kairon on April 11, 2007, 01:31:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
(Just look at Kairon, I really love the guy and it shows because I tease him all the time.)
Awwww... Golden! You DO care! *sniff*
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Speak of the devil, I mention Kairon in my one of my posts in this thread and here he is! So I better poke fun at him. Let's see:
"Kairon is a Halo lover"
*unsniff*
GoldenPhoenix is a Crackdown lover.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 11, 2007, 01:32:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KaironQuote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
(Just look at Kairon, I really love the guy and it shows because I tease him all the time.)
Awwww... Golden! You DO care! *sniff*Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Speak of the devil, I mention Kairon in my one of my posts in this thread and here he is! So I better poke fun at him. Let's see:
"Kairon is a Halo lover"
*unsniff*
GoldenPhoenix is a Crackdown lover.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
I feel so violated and offended! Take that back, NOW.
Post by: Kairon on April 11, 2007, 01:36:20 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: capamerica on April 11, 2007, 01:42:13 PM
Even if there is a second review I'm all ready skeptic if its going to be a fair one.
It wouldn't at all surprise me if you guys go out of your way to have another bad review just so they can say the first wasn't wrong.
I have a hard time trusting NWR now for accurate and fair reviews.
Lately it seems like I get fairer and less biased reviews from the fanboys of GameFAQs, Sadly its looking like if I want a decent review from someone who is fair and gives the game a decent chance and actually outlines the pros and cons then I might have to go back to IGN and GameSpot...
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on April 11, 2007, 02:27:00 PM
Post by: Kairon on April 11, 2007, 02:29:38 PM
/cries
You BROKE IT!!!
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 11, 2007, 02:44:03 PM
Post by: Kairon on April 11, 2007, 02:47:39 PM
~Carmined "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on April 11, 2007, 02:53:49 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on April 11, 2007, 02:53:57 PM
That said, if Stan just explained WHY he didn't like the game, like citing examples of where the controls didn't work for him and how he would choose to improve upon the game, I wouldn't say boo to the review. I'd still consider it harsher than it should be, but all things considered, I'm still willing to believe that someone could form the opinions contained within if they're well-enforced with reason and logic.
Even if I don't agree with the conclusions, I could still see how he came to them and I'm sure the review would have drawn much less flak.
When I gave WoW a 3/10 in my review, I made damn certain to explain calmly and carefully why I felt it deserved that score and how I came to the conclusion I did. I still took heat for it, sure, but if someone wanted to argue it, they had to argue against my points rather than my opinions.
Post by: ShyGuy on April 11, 2007, 02:54:11 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 11, 2007, 02:57:37 PM
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on April 11, 2007, 02:57:54 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 11, 2007, 02:58:52 PM
"Last word"
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on April 11, 2007, 02:59:02 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 11, 2007, 03:00:21 PM
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on April 11, 2007, 03:02:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Reporting Jonnyboy to the moderators..
Really? I don't think sarcasm is against the rules. But personal attacks are, and I've seen some hurled at Stan and me in here.
Post by: Arbok on April 11, 2007, 03:04:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
There are different opinions, and not everyone is going to think Super Swing Golf Pangya or Sonic is the next coming of gaming's golden age...
Or Elebits...
Post by: Kairon on April 11, 2007, 03:10:34 PM
*ducks*
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 11, 2007, 03:14:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ArbokQuote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
There are different opinions, and not everyone is going to think Super Swing Golf Pangya or Sonic is the next coming of gaming's golden age...
Or Elebits...
HOw DARE you, everyone knows Elebits is the second coming of gaming's golden age, they just don't want to admit it openly.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 11, 2007, 03:19:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Jonnyboy117Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Reporting Jonnyboy to the moderators..
Really? I don't think sarcasm is against the rules. But personal attacks are, and I've seen some hurled at Stan and me in here.
I'll have to back up Jonny and Stan here, there have been some blatant attacks to their integrity. Like I said before, isn't this kind of silly since it is over an oddball anime golf game that most people won't even play? Why exactly is this particular review so offensive taking that into account? Heck I wouldn't even consider a negative review for Mario Golf grounds to throw insults, and questioning someone's integrity, it seems silly. Fine I can understand people getting upset if a game has been overwhelmingly praised, and there is a negative review (not even that is grounds to throw out the insults I've been reading here), but a game that hasn't been getting all that hot reviews in the first place? I'm not quite understanding why, exactly, this particular game is such a big deal.
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on April 11, 2007, 03:31:18 PM
Post by: Arbok on April 11, 2007, 03:42:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: TheYoungerPlumber
For the same reason Nintendo fans tend to raise up arms when Nintendo is attacked--they love defending what they love.
TYP is quickly becoming my favorite member of the staff.... although Evan still gets major points for his love of Kurosawa.
Anyway, to agree with S_B, and his well constructed rebuttal, I think the reason why people are getting so worked up over the review is the tone of voice. As a reviewer, although of films, I will attest that it's fun to write these types of reviews, but there is a time and a place. The game has to reach the lower "tier" of the scale enough for that to work, and going by the general reaction here I would say this game didn't quite fit the bill.
Post by: Kairon on April 11, 2007, 03:46:35 PM
I'm not here because of the score. I'm here personally because the reviewer thought that Scout was the only protagonist... when 1 minute into playing the game you can CLEARLY choose an alternate protagonist: Hanna.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Artimus on April 11, 2007, 06:19:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ArbokQuote
Originally posted by: TheYoungerPlumber
For the same reason Nintendo fans tend to raise up arms when Nintendo is attacked--they love defending what they love.
TYP is quickly becoming my favorite member of the staff.... although Evan still gets major points for his love of Kurosawa.
I didn't know Evan loved Kurosawa! I didn't know YOU loved Kurosawa! I love Kurosawa! He's my favorite director.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on April 11, 2007, 06:26:47 PM
Post by: wandering on April 11, 2007, 08:47:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Jonnyboy117Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
NWR is the new ign.
I'm not sure if this is meant to be an insult or compliment, but I am curious as to how you came to this strange conclusion. I don't see what this review has to do with IGN or anything people have been saying about IGN's reviews of Wii games.
Well, I just meant that NWR is producing more reviews and editorials that are irksome to Nintendophiles than ign is these days. Ign took a lot of heat in the Nintendo community for not "getting" beloved games like Mario Kart: Double Dash back in the day, but ign's infractions seem minor in comparison to NWR's recent treacherous evildoing.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 11, 2007, 08:55:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: wanderingQuote
Originally posted by: Jonnyboy117Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
NWR is the new ign.
I'm not sure if this is meant to be an insult or compliment, but I am curious as to how you came to this strange conclusion. I don't see what this review has to do with IGN or anything people have been saying about IGN's reviews of Wii games.
Well, I just meant that NWR is producing more reviews and editorials that are irksome to Nintendophiles than ign is these days. Ign took a lot of heat in the Nintendo community for not "getting" beloved games like Mario Kart: Double Dash back in the day, but ign's infractions seem minor in comparison to NWR's recent treacherous evildoing.
IGN's DD review is why I trust them so much, I couldn't have agreed more with their review of it and wish I would have listened.
Post by: Kairon on April 11, 2007, 09:00:29 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 11, 2007, 09:06:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
I realized I couldn't trust websites when they rated ED so high... Same with how everyone called TP the best Zelda evar.. PSHAW!
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Guess what? You are WRONG again. Go back and play your Halo 1 and 2, mixed with alittle GTA.
Post by: Kairon on April 11, 2007, 09:49:19 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: IceCold on April 11, 2007, 10:11:11 PM
QuoteOh yeah? Then what would Stan's 10 for Mario Tennis be?
BUT, I have no issue with the final score. a 3.5 on NWR is about a 6.0 on a normal game site, by my guess
There's little doubt that NWR in general has been deteriorating. I haven't trusted most of the reviews here for a while now, and the main draw for me is the forums. The scores are part of the matter, but the style and justification are usually weak, and many times not worth even reading.
I also find that most of the staffers aren't very connected with the NWR community. It's like they are a separate identity - you will much more likely find them posting on, say, NeoGAF, than on the NWR forums.
Some of them might want to take a few lessons in diplomacy, too..
Post by: ShyGuy on April 11, 2007, 11:08:02 PM
Things sure have gone downhill since Bloodworth left.
Post by: Bloodworth on April 12, 2007, 12:05:08 AM
I do think that Stan complained about some things that weren't worth complaining about and he definitely took on the gutter game review style that Jeff has become famous for, and all of us have used from time to time. I don't think that was the best choice with this game though. This isn't the half-finished licensed game thrust on an uninformed audience. This is an original title that people were expecting more out of, and I don't think Stan's review ever makes it clear that he wanted to like it and was disappointed.
As for the responses here, I think it took way too long for someone to actually call out the problems they saw in the review. If you bring up your disagreements in a level-headed analytical manner, your views are going to be addressed more appropriately. But when you just go and make broad generalizations, attack someone's integrity, or start talking about the site going downhill, your opinion is likely going to be met in kind and brushed aside.
Whenever I've come across opposition in the past, no matter how crazy it sounds, I've always tried to sift through it to see if there's any place where I am at fault or areas where I can improve. That's not easy to do though. You have to be open to criticism without losing confidence in your opinion or becoming paranoid about upsetting people. There's always someone who's going to disagree. So as you can see, from the writer's perspective, there all these thin lines between being humble, being jaded, and being self-conscious, and I'm sure we've all crossed back and forth between them.
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on April 12, 2007, 12:50:45 AM
Post by: Shift Key on April 12, 2007, 02:09:09 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: TheYoungerPlumber
You know, I really don't like these broad "NWR reviews are now crap" statements, because as far as I can tell you guys really mean there are a few recent reviews you strongly disagree with or think are not well written. And if I had to take a guess at which ones you're alluding to, I'd say you're really tweaked at this review (obviously), Evan's Sonic review, and perhaps a scattering of others. I'm going to sit here and say you're BSing if you're going to tell me dinosaurs like Steven, Jonny, Aaron, Jeff, or Dan (before he left), or I have suddenly gone sour with our reviews because our styles and positions on games really haven't changed all that much over the last year or two. Maybe I should have played Sonic. Maybe I should have then reviewed Sonic. But I did not and will not at this point.
I rate this critique 7.9. The Wiimote interactivity tacked on and the graphics are sub-par at best.
But seriously, not much has changed. Its not like the NWR staff had lobotomies while they were in line for the Wii launch. As Bloodworth said, if you (and by you I mean the readers) are going to criticize the reviews, put it constructively. No one benefits from verbal diarrhea.
The only real difference I see between reviews these days and the Gamecube reviews is that the Wiimote controls produce a different gaming experience depending largely on the person playing the game, and its producing a greater degree of polarity in readers. That appears to be the big X-factor for the Wii - and the thing that is driving sales - is the controller and the potential for new and bizarre ways of playing games (the elephant minigames in Wario Ware sealed it, next-gen involves me acting like a clown, forget gfx or gameplay).
But if people can have totally difference experiences with the same game using the same controller, then perhaps there's needs to be an adjustment in the focus of the review? Do you incorporate a "Wiimote Curve" or something to indicate how easy the gestures are to pick up and how confident you are after a period of playing the game? It is obvious that the Wiimote is having a greater effect on gameplay and the experience than any other controller around (does the Virtual Boy count? of course not, that product is dead in the gutter) and so perhaps you need to focus more on the Wiimote rather than just "Controls" in general.
NWR staff, stick to your guns when you review games. When someone tells you how you should think, the terrorists have already won.
Fanboys, use the Reader Review forum if you think you can do a better job of reviewing games.
Post by: planetidiot on April 12, 2007, 02:39:15 AM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on April 12, 2007, 03:07:22 AM
Post by: Plugabugz on April 12, 2007, 04:04:25 AM
Quote
The only real difference I see between reviews these days and the Gamecube reviews is that the Wiimote controls produce a different gaming experience depending largely on the person playing the game, and its producing a greater degree of polarity in readers.
Ultimately, this is what all of the "arguably" heavy scores boil down to.
For that reason, it may be advisable to have a second reviewer who isn't a PhD in that area to review the same game (but conversely, not someone who hates that genre). The two reviews are then averaged out and given a final score. If i know one person who, for example, likes the sonic franchise played Rings, alongside someone who hasn't before, it wont seem like person x can scream and shout lobotomy and rate it badly because the camera threw them into a chasm of porridge.
Post by: Darkheart on April 12, 2007, 04:11:06 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Infernal Monkey
Is capamerica part of the development team behind this game or something? Bloody hell, it's a golf game. Calm down.
ITS NOT JUST A GOLF GAME, its a demon of many tiers of darkness, shrouded in the clouds of madness, teething and knawing at what can be only described as "CONSUMER OF MANY SOULS"~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111111_shift + 1111111111111
This thread needs more Pro666 hilarity of sarcastic remarks
.Ok just gonna toss my two cents in:
Review: Yea I was sort of taken aback on the score of this review but reviews are subjective. If anyone here is going to take this site alone on their reviews to purchase games I feel sorry for you. I personally, look at several reviews of the game to get a general concensus of what people like or liked about it and they still could be all wrong. Fantastic games like Chibi Robo was fun but I stopped playing because the gameplay was too slow for me. Having my characters die and leave me forever irked me on the Fire Emblem games. Both games got decent scores all around but both games failed in my eyes when I played them. Personal taste is a factor in what you play/buy.
Super Swing Golf: I am sorry I really had high hopes for this game because I loved its online counterpart. That game is still a fun game that I can pick up any day I am bored and start hitting the tourneys all over again. I personally had no problems with the Wii controls, but the game did get sort of old fast. For all of you guys claiming you can play as Hana, ummm thats still two characters that are really generic, and it does take a LONG time before you can go nab one of better characters that ACTUALLY have personality. Speaking of generic scout, how funny that he called him that because when I first got Albatross 18 online I called scout Generic Anime Boy # 38 He looks so plain and compared to any other characters in the game he lacks personality and life.
NWR: Now I do not know about these accusations about staffers posting elsewhere in other site forums, but I do know for a fact that these people have been running this site with other stuff going on. VgCats is a webcomic site where the artist is able to work out of his home and actually live off of his site. This site however does not, all of the people who work here are on volunteer basis and have different activities going on in their lives. I know as a college student, being able to live a semi normal life, working, helping out the family, etc etc. alone is hard enough work. I can not imagine what these people have to do to keep up with a site and the crap they have in their own lives. The only thing I do sort of agree with is that it would be nice to see staffers post in threads more often. It does feel like the forums are a seperate part of the site. Other than that keep up the good work.
P.S. I fully agree with Smash's great rebuttal.
P.S.S To keep this thread going.............
Elebits is the Super Mario 64 of the Wii~!
Post by: nitsu niflheim on April 12, 2007, 05:06:32 AM
But Stan didn't like the game, so why should he be attacked because of his opinion? If he thinks the game is worth a 3.5, then that's the end of it. I sincerely doubt that he gave it a 3.5 it to attack fans of the game or for any other reason.
Post by: Arbok on April 12, 2007, 05:26:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
I didn't know Evan loved Kurosawa! I didn't know YOU loved Kurosawa! I love Kurosawa! He's my favorite director.
And the world is a happier place...
Post by: MegaByte on April 12, 2007, 06:23:50 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Then again there are times where people complain about a negative review when they haven't even played the game. Wish I could recall which individuals do that though
Post by: Artimus on April 12, 2007, 06:26:28 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ArbokQuote
Originally posted by: Artimus
I didn't know Evan loved Kurosawa! I didn't know YOU loved Kurosawa! I love Kurosawa! He's my favorite director.
And the world is a happier place...
Which of his films are your favorites?
(I don't think NWR's quality has really deteriorated. That's just foolish. I think if you write this kind of review you need to be prepared for the same reaction, which you guys obviously weren't, but otherwise people are mainly just peeved at the score. Just be glad you only get this much flak when it's a 3.5. The whole IGN/DD thing was far far worse. Especially since the damn game deserved a 7.5. The only thing that NWR needs to fix is the design, but we won't go there.
)
Post by: Ceric on April 12, 2007, 06:44:00 AM
On a side note: I'm playing elebits right now. I like the mulitplayer, the story, art direction but, I don't like the core gameplay in single player.
Post by: ShyGuy on April 12, 2007, 06:56:08 AM
The fact of the matter is that if the readership doesn't trust NWR's reviews, that is a Nintendo World Report problem, not a Nintendo World Report visitor problem. That is the nature of the free market.
Post by: nitsu niflheim on April 12, 2007, 07:40:19 AM
Post by: Arbok on April 12, 2007, 08:12:22 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
Which of his films are your favorites?
Seven Samurai, Yojimbo and Ikiru, roughly in that order.
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
The fact of the matter is that if the readership doesn't trust NWR's reviews, that is a Nintendo World Report problem, not a Nintendo World Report visitor problem. That is the nature of the free market.
Tis true. Video games are a very competitive sector of the internet in terms of reporting and reviewing.
Post by: vudu on April 12, 2007, 08:38:11 AM
Post by: Arbok on April 12, 2007, 08:55:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: vudu
You list is faulty for the lack of Rashômon.
I'm a heathen, I know...
Post by: NWR_pap64 on April 12, 2007, 08:56:18 AM
In other words, it seems that the NWR reviews focuses far too much on the negative aspect of a game and very little on the good, or even offer a fair and balanced view of the game, despite overall quality of the game.
As a fellow reviewer, all I am stating is that you guys shouldn't focus far too much on the bad and actually try to spend more time with the game enough and point out the good. Also, I know reviews are based on ONE'S experience with the game, but it doesn't hurt to keep in mind how gamers will react to it.
So this is my overall gripe with reviews at the moment.
Post by: Arbok on April 12, 2007, 09:05:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: pap64
Also, I know reviews are based on ONE'S experience with the game, but it doesn't hurt to keep in mind how gamers will react to it.
Word of golden advice right here. I take the same approach. I may not care for a subject much or, on the flip side love it... and I will state this in my review, but I will also try and approach my job as how I think others will like the title. I guess it's more of a philosophy. You can look at a review as a chance to vent ones own thoughts about the product, or you can approach it as walking through the matter with the reader, allowing them to use your work as a guide as to if the title is right for them. However, it is only a philosophy, and everyone prefers different approaches.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on April 12, 2007, 09:37:25 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ArbokQuote
Originally posted by: pap64
Also, I know reviews are based on ONE'S experience with the game, but it doesn't hurt to keep in mind how gamers will react to it.
Word of golden advice right here. I take the same approach. I may not care for a subject much or, on the flip side love it... and I will state this in my review, but I will also try and approach my job as how I think others will like the title. I guess it's more of a philosophy. You can look at a review as a chance to vent ones own thoughts about the product, or you can approach it as walking through the matter with the reader, allowing them to use your work as a guide as to if the title is right for them. However, it is only a philosophy, and everyone prefers different approaches.
Yeah I agree.
For example, this SSG review came very late. The game was a launch title, so that gave Stan more than enough time to see how the community sees this game. He would've understood that there are some fans of the game.
If I were Stan I would've written this:
"In my humble opinion, I didn't see what was so much fun and captivating about this game. I encountered far too many issues that ruined my experience. But I may be the minority here and its understandable why some gamers would like it. If SSG is your type of game, give it a rent. But keep in mind that the game has some issues that may put a damp on the overall enjoyment"
He would've stated in a calm manner that he didn't like the game while respecting the fan's love towards it.
It would've been far better than the angst and angry style he chose for this game.
Post by: that Baby guy on April 12, 2007, 10:06:19 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 12, 2007, 10:52:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Oh Noes! that image is 49 pixels too wide!
The fact of the matter is that a vocal minority doesn't trust NWR's reviews, that is a Nintendo World Report problem, not a Nintendo World Report visitor problem. That is the nature of the free market.
Fixed
Post by: Smash_Brother on April 12, 2007, 03:05:42 PM
Stan, I'm not certain if you were trying to come across as funny or if, like I said, something tainted this game for you. In either case, the big issue is that your review didn't tell me much about the game itself. What you gave us truly was more of an angry rant than a critical analysis of the game.
Had you gone into great detail about why the game was so bad for you, you wouldn't have received this much heat over it.
Also, the only reason I suspected an external influence regarding your opinion of the game is because I too have had that happen once or twice and it was basically impossible for me to give the game a fair shake after that.
I'm sorry for outright accusing you, but understand that I only did so because I genuinely believe your review has succumb to some external influences because it lacks the clear and concise analytical voice found in your former reviews.
Again, I apologize.
Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
What is he reviewing, though. The game, or the behavior of the game's fans. You read the review to find out what that person thinks of the game, and not what people that person has read about on web forums think about the the game.
I think a solid review should take a few different viewpoints, when it comes to fleshing out a good impression of the game.
There's nothing wrong with a reviewer saying, "I don't like this, but _______ probably will so they should rent it." It's why my personal review system offers 5 scores for different gaming groups: hardcore, normal, fan, party and non-gamer. The DBZ game on the Wii, for example, would be a 5-6 for a normal gamer but a 9.5 for a fan because fans of the series will LOVE the ability to pantomime moves like the kamehamehama and to go through most of the storylines in the game, unlocking piles of characters.
Post by: Caliban on April 12, 2007, 04:45:29 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: MegaByteQuote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Then again there are times where people complain about a negative review when they haven't even played the game. Wish I could recall which individuals do that though
Ian. Yeah he was the first person that came to mind when I read that in the game lol.
Post by: Bloodworth on April 12, 2007, 05:21:00 PM
Post by: Kairon on April 12, 2007, 05:48:04 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
P.S. ZOMG! Bloodworth is... he's... not... he's at GameTRAILERS?!?!?!?! WWWWWWWWWHHHHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!?????!?!?!?!?
Post by: ShyGuy on April 12, 2007, 06:24:08 PM
Post by: Bloodworth on April 12, 2007, 06:40:22 PM
Post by: NWR_pap64 on April 12, 2007, 07:06:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bloodworth
That's my new wallpaper at work. Also, I think I know why Stan was disappointed in this game. He was probably hoping for something a little more like this:
Oh now that explains EVERYTHING...
Slightly off topic, but I am surprised no one has figured out why capamerica likes this game so much.
Come on people, take a wild guess!
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on April 12, 2007, 07:25:21 PM
Post by: Kairon on April 13, 2007, 05:03:19 AM
... I know that's why I like it...
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on April 13, 2007, 05:50:30 AM
By the way, someone mentioned IGN's infamous MK
D review as an example of how we're becoming more like IGN. The funny thing is that I like that game much more than they did, probably because I had someone to play co-op through the whole game, and that's BY FAR the most fun way to play Double Dash. Without co-op, I agree that the game is a disappointing sequel in many respects. So, as others have noted in this thread, your final view of a game depends heavily on your individual experience playing it.
Post by: Kairon on April 13, 2007, 06:43:49 AM
WAIT... that's NOT a TRUE AD! WTF! Match?!??!?!?! Is that like True in an alternate dimension?!?!?
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Arbok on April 13, 2007, 07:02:26 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
WAIT... that's NOT a TRUE AD! WTF! Match?!??!?!?!
And immediately after leaving, Bloodworth has already started a campaign to promote the rivals of this site's advertisers....
Post by: vudu on April 13, 2007, 07:25:41 AM
Quotecameltoe olololololol
Originally posted by: pap64
Slightly off topic, but I am surprised no one has figured out why capamerica likes this game so much.
Come on people, take a wild guess!
Post by: stedaman on October 09, 2007, 09:08:02 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on October 09, 2007, 03:18:13 PM
