Game Informer's Excuse for Paper Mario's Score

bjork said:
That's their fault then, not GI's.

I mean, isn't it? Really.
Click to expand...

Oh, shut up. If you don't want to read people complain, go to another thread. I find it hard to believe you can't see the blatant a breach in trust going on here. You might know better than most, you might not take a review in Game Informer seriously, but that's not the point. A lot of people do. Game Informer has a much, much higher subscriber base than Gaming-Age does a readerbase, anyway.
 
bjork said:
That's their fault then, not GI's.

I mean, isn't it? Really.
Click to expand...

No, it really isn't.
GI is using their success to sway the public. That is the fault of GI and it reflects their poor integrity and their gaming bias.

The casual readers of the magazine have no idea the editor's liked the title. They see the low score and the kiddie comments and think that the title isn't quality, which it most certainly is.
 
You know, I'm probably going to give more criticism to Paper Mario than most other people have...but I'm doing so on the grounds of what I consider to be flaws in its game design, not problems with its demography. (Is that a word? It should be.) If the next Rugrats game was fun as hell and had a badass four-player mode that my friends and I could play for hours on end, I'd give it a great review...because it would be a great game. And I could (and regularly do) issue a caveat that younger/older/sicker/fanboy players will enjoy it more than the general populace, but I don't see how you can factor that into any kind of quantitative score. Number scores are bullshit anyway, but if you're going to weigh them against some theoretical public perception, they're going to be even bullshittier. (Is that a word? It should be.)

As a student of the critical process, these threads are some of my favorites and one of the big reasons I hang around GAF. Props to you who point these things out and are interested in intelligently discussing such issues.
 
This is a HUGE fucking bombshell. If Roger Ebert said the same thing he wouldn't have a job. This isn't much worse than getting paid off for review scores. I've been hearing good things about GI in the last few years, so I was thinking about trying them out, but I sure as fuck am not now. If they're not scoring games based on how good the games are then how do they even call them reviews. They're just "our estimation of how much we think you'll like it."
 
I love how they try to give an explanation for something that made some of their readers angry, and end up sticking their foot so far up their mouths that their toes are wriggling out their cracks.

GI has always been worthless to me, this just hammers down the last few nails.
 
bjork said:
iawtp

Seriously, though... it's like when this site gave Ninja Gaiden a C-. People came out of the woodwork and joined just to say that the reviewer sucked, the site sucked, etc. Who the hell cares if one person doesn't like a game? If they're a reveiwer and they dislike the game they review, that doesn't make it bad... I've never understood why people get all pissed about these things.

A review score someone disagrees with doesn't make the site/reviewer bad, and it doesn't make the game bad. It just means that you have a better life than you think, when the day's crisis revolves around a review score imo.
Click to expand...
well, at least in the GA review, the reviewer reviewed the game badly because they disliked the game.. that's somewhat understandable... this is the reviewer LIKING the game and scoring it low because "more people will dislike it than like it"

i mean, if a game doesn't sell to 50% of the console's userbase, isn't that more people disliking than liking?
OMG EVERY GAME IS BAD! 6.8 C- 7.9
 
I'd also wager to say that the reviewer is wrong about the appeal of the game. I think if you handed it out to 100 random people and had them play through it, at least 51 people would enjoy themselves.

He said it is a kiddie game that is meant for players 10 and under, then said he really enjoyed it? Self inflicted wound!
 
It wouldn't be such a bad thing if they were fucking sampling people and asking them their opinions on various types of games n stuff, but theyre basically running wild with their own judgement and guessing what will be most media friendly / accepted_&_bought. The games industry is enough of a dire hit driven market as it is... I'm not even judging the Paper Mario 2 score here (I haven't played it myself)... but their philosophy is bullshit. Bullshitier than bullshit. It's the bullshittest. There thats 2 words we've made!
 
Yusaku said:
This is a HUGE fucking bombshell. If Roger Ebert said the same thing he wouldn't have a job. This isn't much worse than getting paid off for review scores. I've been hearing good things about GI in the last few years, so I was thinking about trying them out, but I sure as fuck am not now. If they're not scoring games based on how good the games how do they even still call them reviews. They're just "our estimation of how much we think you'll like it."
Click to expand...
it'd be awesome if movie reviewers reviewed movies based on if they think they will be box office blockbusters or not!
AVP!? AWESOME! SPECTACULAR! EVERYONE WILL SEE THIS MOVIE! TWICE!
 
MetatronM said:
There is a difference between "being objective" (which is basically what you are getting at) and "tilting the score to reflect whether or not you think the game comes across as being cool" (which is basically what GI is saying).

In fact, those two points are almost exactly opposite.
Click to expand...

Not when 'being cool' is a major selling point for games nowadays. Trying to factor the potential mainstream appeal (or lack thereof) of a title like this into the review score isn't a crime--after all, the whole point is to help the 'average gamer' decide how best to spend their money. I do think they misjudged how much this game would appeal to the 'average gamer', though, and I feel that's where they dropped the ball.
 
Soul4ger said:
Oh, shut up. If you don't want to read people complain, go to another thread. I find it hard to believe you can't see the blatant a breach in trust going on here. You might know better than most, you might not take a review in Game Informer seriously, but that's not the point. A lot of people do. Game Informer has a much, much higher subscriber base than Gaming-Age does a readerbase, anyway.
Click to expand...

It still doesn't matter. If you're enough of a douche that you only part with money on a game that gets a certain score in a certain magazine, you derserve to miss out on stuff that's fun but didn't necessarily jive with some random reviewers.

They don't owe anything to you or anyone else, and it's their magazine, so they can write how they like.
 
Tellaerin said:
Not when 'being cool' is a major selling point for games nowadays. Trying to factor the potential mainstream appeal (or lack thereof) of a title like this into the review score isn't a crime--after all, the whole point is to help the 'average gamer' decide how best to spend their money. I do think they misjudged how much this game would appeal to the 'average gamer', though, and I feel that's where they dropped the ball.
Click to expand...
so how much higher should EA Sports games score over ESPN, based on mainstream appeal? on a 10 point scale of course...
 
By this method of scoring, you could actually review a game WITHOUT ever having played it. You could take media, PR, and the like, and write something, gauging all the while how you thought the public would like a game.

"Well, most people seem to like James Bond, so Goldeneye: Rogue Agent is great! 9.5!"
 
Go Go Ackman! said:
shut up babies.
Click to expand...

If we were having issues with the numerical score, I'd agree. But that's not what this is concerning, so shove it.
 
The Faceless Master said:
so how much higher should EA Sports games score over ESPN, based on mainstream appeal? on a 10 point scale of course...
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough, GI was one of the few that rated ESPN flat-out higher than Madden.
 
Soul4ger said:
By this method of scoring, you could actually review a game WITHOUT ever having played it. You could take media, PR, and the like, and write something, gauging all the while how you thought the public would like a game.

"Well, most people seem to like James Bond, so Goldeneye: Rogue Agent is great! 9.5!"
Click to expand...
wait, what if it's filled with bugs, like Matrix or Driv3r...
 
The Faceless Master said:
well, at least in the GA review, the reviewer reviewed the game badly because they disliked the game.. that's somewhat understandable... this is the reviewer LIKING the game and scoring it low because "more people will dislike it than like it"

i mean, if a game doesn't sell to 50% of the console's userbase, isn't that more people disliking than liking?
OMG EVERY GAME IS BAD! 6.8 C- 7.9
Click to expand...

It's the same to me, because I'd assume there's some sort of boss/editor/someone who approves what goes into these magazines and sites, and what does not. So to that end, the person running the show obviously has no problem placing these reviews up for public viewing.

It's really a non-issue. I don't see why they "have to" write certain way or whatever. You're not required to buy the magazine.
 
The Faceless Master said:
so how much higher should EA Sports games score over ESPN, based on mainstream appeal? on a 10 point scale of course...
Click to expand...

Cute but irrelevant, unless ESPN intends to replace the players in their sports titles with 2D cartoon cutouts of fat Italian plumbers and turtles.
 
so where does a game that has very little hype but sells great over a long time fall into? would that be a 1 or 10?

I remember when you used to give a score based on what you objectively thought about a game. This thread gets a 3.0 from me because I predict most people will hate it.
 
The Faceless Master said:
wait, what if it's filled with bugs, like Matrix or Driv3r...
Click to expand...

IT DOESN'T MATTER! Clearly, Paper Mario 2 was awarded no points for being an incredibly polished game. It's childish, and people hate childish! Now, if there were some guns or something...
 
Tellaerin said:
Cute but irrelevant, unless ESPN intends to replace the players in their sports titles with 2D cartoon cutouts of fat Italian plumbers and turtles.
Click to expand...
we're talking public perception... and the public perceives EA Sports to be 'the one'
 
bjork said:
It still doesn't matter. If you're enough of a douche that you only part with money on a game that gets a certain score in a certain magazine, you derserve to miss out on stuff that's fun but didn't necessarily jive with some random reviewers.

They don't owe anything to you or anyone else, and it's their magazine, so they can write how they like.
Click to expand...


As someone stated before, magazines are aimed at the average, casual gamer. Gaming isn't anything more than an amusing passtime for a lot of people, so it's unfair to criticize decisions based on what is supposed to be a fair and trusted source.

I don't know shit about home theater, and I don't have the time or inclination to become an expert, or even move beyond 'casual' status. So while I try to do a little of bit of research on the subject, I also rely on reviews to help me make more informed purchasing decisions when I buy electronics. Does that make me a douche?
 
I can't believe they actually said that.

It still doesn't matter. If you're enough of a douche that you only part with money on a game that gets a certain score in a certain magazine, you derserve to miss out on stuff that's fun but didn't necessarily jive with some random reviewers.
Click to expand...

So misinformed people buy games based on PR and insecurities, thus stifling newer ideas and games and the industry suffers. Attitude's like GIs appear more subtley in other game media outlets and its a disturbing problem. In a Pro-Con list "kiddy" is always in the con, but generically mature is ignored. The faux, 13yearold maturism of Bloodrayne is just as bad as the colorful cartoony look of Ribbit King. If they care about the hobby, people should care what the game media is saying.
 
You're not required to buy the magazine.
Click to expand...

If the mag had a disclaimer detailing this kind of dubious reviewing practice, maybe a lot less would. I personally expect evaluation of the product in and of itself. Reviews are meant to provide context... they should guide you into buying things, not guess what you're going to buy!
 
hmm so what should a game like DOAU get, if we're projecting how much the general public likes fighting games in general, and a casual, flashy one at that...?
 
Ristamar said:
As someone stated before, magazines are aimed at the average, casual gamer. Gaming isn't anything more than an amusing passtime for a lot of people, so it's unfair to criticize decisions based on what is supposed to be a fair and trusted source.

I don't shit about home theater, and I don't have the time or inclination to become an expert, or even move beyond 'casual' status. So while I try to do a bit of research, I also rely on reviews to help me make more informed purchasing decisions when I buy electronics. Does that make me a douche?
Click to expand...

"If you're enough of a douche that you only part with money on a game that gets a certain score in a certain magazine"

So if you only read one review and your home theater is ass, then yes. Your fault for not researching and maybe even trying it first.
 
The Faceless Master said:
we're talking public perception... and the public perceives EA Sports to be 'the one'
Click to expand...

No, we're talking mainstream appeal, and mainstream appeal usually hinges on things like visual style, theme, and presentation. 'Trendy' licenses, 'cultural relevance', 'realistic' graphics, etc. I may not agree with it, but there are many people out there who base their purchases on these points.
 
radioheadrule83 said:
If the mag had a disclaimer detailing this kind of dubious reviewing practice, maybe a lot less would. I personally expect evaluation of the product in and of itself. Reviews are meant to provide context... they should guide you into buying things, not guess what you're going to buy!
Click to expand...

I see it no differently than a television show or something. If you don't care for the content, don't buy it. I mean, you all don't want them to base reviews off what people will think, but you want them to review games certain ways to justify buying the magazine? Silly.
 
bjork said:
It's the same to me, because I'd assume there's some sort of boss/editor/someone who approves what goes into these magazines and sites, and what does not. So to that end, the person running the show obviously has no problem placing these reviews up for public viewing.

It's really a non-issue. I don't see why they "have to" write certain way or whatever. You're not required to buy the magazine.
Click to expand...


It's not the same thing and it's not even close.
Yes, all magazines end up having the boss-dude
No, reviews should be scored based on the QUALITY of the product not the forcasted demand





If I wrote a novel that is THE best fantasy novel of all time, should I get a lower review than Wheel of Time XIV just because your boss thinks WoTXIV is going to sell more?
THAT'S FUCKING BULLSHIT.
If an international movie is better than all the Hollywood flicks out this year, are you going to give it a 7 just because not many people will watch it?
Your publication, acting like the ignorant bunch of rotten little asses they are, assume that because a game has OMG THE BRITE COLOURS and not enough tittage that the game is going to be bought by 8 year olds who control a small portion of the market and FORE THAT REASON ALONE cannot score as high as the game deserves. Is that fair? Is that sound reviewing practice?

Reviews are supposed to appraise the value of a product - to warn or notify you if a product is better or worse than it's peers. What they're doing it estimating the retail success and shatting on real journalists
 
Gattsu25 said:
Reviews are supposed to appraise the value of a product - to warn or notify you if a product is better or worse than it's peers. What they're doing it estimating the retail success and shatting on real journalists
Click to expand...

Appraise based on the reviewer's perception, however it may be tallied up.

I'm not defending GI, mind you, because I don't read it... but if they want to go "we score games low that have pink on the cover", so what. It's their magazine, and I think people are overestimating the importance of reviews, as well as the honesty of "real journalists."
 
bjork said:
"If you're enough of a douche that you only part with money on a game that gets a certain score in a certain magazine"

So if you only read one review and your home theater is ass, then yes. Your fault for not researching and maybe even trying it first.
Click to expand...

I do check multiple reviews, and guess what, I don't have the time or inclination to try 10 different receivers in my price range (in store demos don't count as "trying it out"). Regardless, by your logic, every magazine could do this if doesn't matter because "it's their magazine".... and then it wouldn't matter if I read a dozen reviews. Or is this cool since, hey, it's only Game Informer and everyone else will be more objective? When should people call them on it, when 2 magazines exhibit similar pandering? 3? Maybe 4?
 
This is a mind-meltingly retarded argument.

"Game Informer is stupid."

"Yeah, but Game Informer has every right to be stupid."

"Yeah, but GAME INFORMER IS STILL STUPID."

"Yeah, but..." &c.

DFS.
 
chespace said:
hmm so what should a game like DOAU get, if we're projecting how much the general public likes fighting games in general, and a casual, flashy one at that...?
Click to expand...

11!
 
"The gaming public doesn't like Rez or Katamari Damacy. Yes. We shall give them 1.5 each. The gaming public knows what's good. They bought Enter the Matrix afterall." - GameInformer
 
Ristamar said:
When should people call them on it, when 2 magazines exhibit similar pandering? 3? Maybe 4?
Click to expand...

People shouldn't call them on it at all, because it's stupid to get so worked up over. They reviewed it bad, people don't agree with it, and don't agree with their review philosophy. End of story. Don't like it, don't read it. To me, disliking a game and having a difference of opinion is no different than disagreeing with someone on abortion or something. I don't agree with this person and their outlook, but I most likely won't change their mind, and their point of view, however they reached it, doesn't make them a bad person or incompetent. People are people.
 
So I'm taking it Paper Mario 2 is easy? Great. Even more reason I'll love it. RPGs with bullshit bosses are games I could only enjoy when I was ten. Now-a-days, if it's 30 minute boss dual that leaves me dying on a semi-constant basis, hello Ebay. Bosses that are short and easily beaten are a plus in my book.
 
GDJustin said:
IT's not pandering. If I were assigned to review Madden 2005 it'd probably get a 2.5 from me because I won't get much enjoyment out of it at all. That's MY personal opinion, and it's not wrong; it's how I feel. Realistically though, I might judge the game on it's merit even though it's not MY thing, because it's my professional duty.

Same goes for Metroid games. I love them TO DEATH so have to force myself to be more critical than I would otherwise.
Click to expand...

That's the wrong tact. Good criticism doesn't look for faults if they don't see them or try to predict what others will think. It makes a strong argument for why the critic loves, hates or is ambivielent to the work.

It's up to the reader of the criticism to determine whether those arguments are sound or not.

If the critic hates football games, he or she should say so, then explain how Madden doesn't do anything to redeem the genre or point out what features make it more tolerable than most. Same goes for the fan. He should explain how the fan is served by the lastest Metroid game, clearly outlining the extent of his or her devotion, then briefly attempt to pull back the blinders and explore whatever minor quibbles the fan-reviewer may have (other than the trite "it was over too soon," please).
 
Seriously for all this bitching, that score is all kinds of whack. Paper Mario 2 is an absolutely wonderful game and really caters to both kinds of gamers: casuals and the hardcore. There's so much to be done with the battle system that I simply cannot understand the "10 and under" comment. IS should be commended for making a game that "anyone" can play and yet gives "real" gamers some serious complexity to explore and enjoy.

The artstyle (which I personally find most appealing) should have nothing to do with scoring the title.
 
Gattsu25 said:
If I wrote a novel that is THE best fantasy novel of all time, should I get a lower review than Wheel of Time XIV just because your boss thinks WoTXIV is going to sell more?
THAT'S FUCKING BULLSHIT.
Click to expand...

You don't get it.

If you wrote a novel that you think is 'THE best fantasy novel of all time', but the average reader is going to consider an impenetrable mess, and the publication reviewing your novel is a mainstream magazine geared toward that hypothetical 'average reader', then why should you expect it to score well? Even if the reviewer recognizes the merits of your book, why should they recommend it to people who they feel are not going to 'get it', won't enjoy it, and will feel cheated for buying it (and probably question his credentials as a reviewer for recommending it to them in the first place)?


Gattsu25 said:
Reviews are supposed to appraise the value of a product - to warn or notify you if a product is better or worse than it's peers. What they're doing it estimating the retail success and shatting on real journalists
Click to expand...

They did appraise the value of a product relative to its peers. You may not agree with the criteria they used to make that appraisal, but that's another issue entirely.
 
Now I can see your reasoning in that last post but...

bjork said:
disliking a game and having a difference of opinion is no different than disagreeing with someone on abortion
Click to expand...


OMGWTF1.jpg
 
bjork said:
...doesn't make them a bad person or incompetent.
Click to expand...


I agree on the former, at least. :)

Anyway, this whole thing amusingly reminds me of something Bill Maher recently said: "We have pervertedly taken the idea of tolerance so far that we have to be tolerant of intolerance."
 
Gattsu25 said:
Now I can see your reasoning in that last post but...
Click to expand...

It's the same argument, different subject. No wtf involved. Some people think it's cool to do, some people don't. Who am I to tell them either way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Paper Mario: Thousand Year Door - Am I missing something or is this game just not clicking for me?
36
226
StueyDuck replied
  • Poll
Mario Kart World Metacritic score
Hype  2 3
119
2K
Thebonehead replied
New Paper Mario game Leak
Rumor 
17
2K
Chuck Berry replied
  • Locked
  • Poll
Mario Kart World: Metacritic Score Prediction (Veteran Gamer Edition)
Poll 
9
255
Orpheus replied
Game Informer's (Belated) Top 10 Games Of 2024 Awards
30
1K
bender replied
Top Bottom