Support NeoGAF

[Gattsu25]

Tellaerin, I think you don't understand my post.

First, a simple clarification: It isn't what I think is the best fantasy novel...it IS the best but it was scored poorly because it was projected to sell less than the other novel

Paper Mario 2 should be scored based on its merits. Not on its potential sales.

That is my point. You would be wise to keep that in mind and not try to shift my argument.

I'm done with this thread.

edit: bjork, I was referring to the issues being compared. :b

 

[Ranger X]

Game Informer way of thinking with reviews is the exact antithesis of what is a review is actually supposed to be!!

SUCK.

 

[bjork]

edit: bjork, I was referring to the issues being compared. :b

I know, I know... kiddies can't have abortions.

:dances a jig:

 

[Kon Tiki]

Who cares? You 'guys' are all over the age of 10. Grow up. [/GI]

 

[radioheadrule83]

Like someone else said - I think they're way off on the appeal to the "gaming public". Perhaps they think Nintendo are selling the game to PS2 and Xbox owners, and not - you know - those guys who like other Mario adventures... Nintendo fans? If theyre going to consider what people will think of the game, they should consider who is most likely to consider it... if you see what I mean.

I stand by this - the explaination of their philosophy was screwed... GI-Jeremy's even backpeddalled already on the GI forum.

Son-Cyke actually has a fair point. My post made it sound like we don't stand by our own personal opinions. We do. I do. I meant to say that I thought more people would agree with my view that Paper Mario 2 than disagree. Sure, our scores my have angered some people, but we're not going to change them to appease people. We gave the game the score ww honestly felt it deserved. That's the end of the story, but if I offended anyone or confused them about how we score games, I'm sorry.

Hmm.. I admire the statement of conviction... but thats pretty much the opposite of the original quote. The original quote implied they liked it but scored it low, agree?

 

[Kobun Heat]

So Katamari Damacy gets like a two, right?

 

[Ristamar]

Hmm.. I admire the statement of conviction... but thats pretty much the opposite of the original quote. The original quote implied they liked it but scored it low, agree?

I don't know anymore. It's been a long day at work, and I need a drink.

 

[etiolate]

Picasso is totally for 10 year olds. Have you seen that Don Quixote shit?

 

[Soul4ger]

Blah blah blah, we made a bonehead statement. Blah blah blah, we hate Paper Mario 2.

Seriously, it was better before. At least they admitted PM2 is GOOD, which it really fucking is. Now, they're saying it's bad, and they stand by that, even when it's NOT. Even when one of these people gave Mario & Luigi a 9-point-fucking-5. Someone, get me a shotgun. For myself. I can't take it anymore.

 

[bjork]

"Sure, our scores my have angered some people, but we're not going to change them to appease people."

That's all that matters.

 

[Mr_Furious]

Thousands of people rely on GI for all of their gaming purchases/news/etc...

Millions of people rely on the gaming media as a whole for such things which is the problem because the press does not act responsibly towards the industry they cover. Objectivity is foreign to the gaming press.

If this is any indication, I wonder how much more shit like this some of you people need to convince you to STOP using some useless stranger's so called "professional" opinion to influence your purchase decisions.

 

[radioheadrule83]

I have to admit, I don't even take IGN / GS reviews seriously anymore. I used to watch GameRankings like a hawk...

Sure, we hype things ourselves sometimes, but I actually find posting at a lot of the boards I post at, getting to know gamers with similar taste, and hearing their thoughts on things - really does yield the most honest appraisals. So I agree. Fuck paying someone you know nothing about for their opinion. Hear the opinions of others by all means... find ones you value... but make your own.

 

[anitalula]

radioheadrule83 is my new favorite. Finally, someone who makes sense

 

[funcojoe]

 

[Che]

what if the game just really sucks? it would be par for the course this gen for nintendo. the only game that has recieved a decent update so far has been fzero and it wasnt even by nintendo. :lol

**DANGER DANGER!!!**
***TROLL ALERT***
***TROLL ALERT***

 

[heidern]

We also know that it is a well-made game.

We gave the game the score ww honestly felt it deserved.

Man they're so full of shit. They're also fucking retarded. They give a low score to a bloody Mario game on a fucking Nintendo console because it won't appeal?

As for being aimed at casuals, that is irrelevant. If something is great, you say so. However you can also add in the caveat that a game is too hard, complicated, easy, kiddy etc etc. That way you are enabling people to make an informed choice.

In this case, they potentially have turned off people who would love PM2 from buying the game. On the other hand they no doubt pissed off people who bought the matrix after seeing their positive review, only to see that it is a piece of shit. What they are doing, is put simply, offering innaccurate information leading to readers making uninformed and hence wrong decisions.

 

[Tellaerin]

Tellaerin, I think you don't understand my post.

First, a simple clarification: It isn't what I think is the best fantasy novel...it IS the best but it was scored poorly because it was projected to sell less than the other novel

I understood your post perfectly well. It's full of holes. I pointed them out to you and you didn't like it. A pity, that, but it's not due to any lack of comprehension on my part.

First, there can never be a 'best fantasy novel' for everyone, because peoples' tastes in fantasy literature vary. There's no objective standard to measure against. Critical opinion? Popular opinion? Just how do you make a sweeping determination like that and call it fact? You can't. Similarly, there can be no 'best artstyle ever', 'best videogame ever', or best anything else where subjective perception plays a role. So even if you consider Paper Mario 2 the 'best game ever', there are going to be people who don't. And in the estimation of the guys at GI, that's going to be most people.

You also seem hung up on this whole 'projected to sell less' bit. Stop and think about why one game would be 'projected to sell less' than another. Could it be because the people doing the projecting feel that people will like one more than the other, for whatever reason? Again, you may not agree with why the guys at GI felt that PM2 wouldn't be well-received by the 'average gamer', but harping on the 'sales' angle reads like a lame attempt at misdirection.

Paper Mario 2 should be scored based on its merits. Not on its potential sales.

And it was, in the estimation of the GI reviewers. In fact, they went to the effort of scoring it based on its merits in the eyes of the hypothetical 'average gamer', which is what you seem incapable of seeing.

That is my point. You would be wise to keep that in mind and not try to shift my argument.

And your point hinges on Paper Mario 2 being great, measured against a supposed absolute standard that's completely arbitrary and doesn't take variations of taste into account. In other words, it doesn't hold water.

And I 'would be wise to' keep that in mind? Or what, exactly? You're going to come to my house and kick my ass? Debate the point or not, but please spare me the threatening nonsense--it just makes you look silly.

 

[olimario]

And it was, which is what you seem incapable of seeing.

I can't see it either. He said it was a great game and it only scored poorly because he didn't think it would appeal to a lot of people. That is NOT scoring a game on its merits.

 

[Yusaku]

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 would disagree with that. The "average casual gamer" isn't going to take enough of an interest in games to buy a magazine about them. Someone who reads a gaming magazine obviously takes an above average interest in games.

And if video games aren't just an amusing pastime then what is it? Do you play games for spiritual fufillment?

 

[Code_Link]

Later in the same thread...

Posted by GI-Jeremy

Son-Cyke actually has a fair point. My post made it sound like we don't stand by our own personal opinions. We do. I do. I meant to say that I thought more people would agree with my view that Paper Mario 2 than disagree. Sure, our scores my have angered some people, but we're not going to change them to appease people. We gave the game the score ww honestly felt it deserved. That's the end of the story, but if I offended anyone or confused them about how we score games, I'm sorry.

http://forums.gameinformer.com/gi/b...essage.id=40825&view=by_date_ascending&page=5

Oopsie, it seems like he's trying to take it back.

 

[bjork]

I have to admit, I don't even take IGN / GS reviews seriously anymore. I used to watch GameRankings like a hawk...

Sure, we hype things ourselves sometimes, but I actually find posting at a lot of the boards I post at, getting to know gamers with similar taste, and hearing their thoughts on things - really does yield the most honest appraisals. So I agree. Fuck paying someone you know nothing about for their opinion. Hear the opinions of others by all means... find ones you value... but make your own.

That's basically what I was trying to say, but I guess I got sidetracked...

 

[Tellaerin]

I can't see it either. He said it was a great game and it only scored poorly because he didn't think it would appeal to a lot of people. That is NOT scoring a game on its merits.

That's scoring a game based on its perceived merit to a general audience, as opposed to the reviewer just assuming that his tastes automatically reflect the feelings of 99% of the people buying games.

 

[junkwaffle]

It's a small point, but the adolescents at GI don't seem to be predicating the review on prophesied sales, but rather on a guess of public desirability. A small distinction, perhaps, but one can really never know the latter.

 

[Soul4ger]

That's scoring a game based on its perceived merit to a general audience, as opposed to the reviewer just assuming that his tastes automatically reflect the feelings of 99% of the people buying games.

It's like writing a news story about a rumor, not indicating that it's a rumor, and saying when it doesn't come to fruition, "Well, there was a chance it might happen! You can't blame us, it's just what we thought!"

"Well, there's a chance people won't like it! If you don't buy it and end up liking it, you can't blame us! It's just what we thought!"

This isn't rational. The guy says it's made for people under 10, but he and his colleague both enjoyed. By default, even if it's just two people having fun, he's proving himself wrong. It's common sense. The fact that people are arguing in favor of this just boggles my mind.

 

[chirills]

They deleted the thread on their forums.

 

[Soul4ger]

Can we get a "BAIL OUT!" picture in here?

 

[Miburou]

I don't really see the controversy. Aren't a lot of reviewers doing that? I mean, if a game is incredibly difficult to the point of being frustrating, won't it lose points, even if the reviewer is a gaming ninja? If a game is way too short, won't it lose points, even if the reviewer doesn''t mind short games? Doesn't the price of a game (fullpriced vs budget-priced) affect its score, eventhough the reviewer got it for free?

 

[Tellaerin]

It's like writing a news story about a rumor, not indicating that it's a rumor, and saying when it doesn't come to fruition, "Well, there was a chance it might happen! You can't blame us, it's just what we thought!"

"Well, there's a chance people won't like it! If you don't buy it and end up liking it, you can't blame us! It's just what we thought!"

This isn't rational. The guy says it's made for people under 10, but he and his colleague both enjoyed. By default, even if it's just two people having fun, he's proving himself wrong. It's common sense. The fact that people are arguing in favor of this just boggles my mind.

And if I were to review a science-fiction JRPG with cel-shaded anime-style graphics, oldschool character designs, and an 80's hair-metal soundtrack, would I be right in scoring it a 10--basically, telling people 'spend your money on this!'--because those things are right up my alley, even though I know damn well that other people are going to hate the presentation and feel cheated if they buy it? Where does my responsibility as a reviewer lie in a case like that?

 

[Soul4ger]

And if I were to review a science-fiction JRPG with cel-shaded anime-style graphics, oldschool character designs, and an 80's hair-metal soundtrack, would I be right in scoring it a 10--basically, telling people 'spend your money on this!'--because those things are right up my alley, even though I know damn well that other people are going to hate the presentation and feel cheated if they buy it? Where does my responsibility as a reviewer lie in a case like that?

Your responsibility as a reviewer is to be honest, and to tell people how you feel about the game you played. Like I said earlier, to do what GI did, you don't even have to play the game. You can look at some movies, see some of the dialogue, read some PR, and form a decision. If you honestly and truly liked a game, it's not your fault if someone listens to you and buys it. But are you going to tell someone ELSE that THEY ARE GOING TO LOVE THIS GAME? No. Because you have no way of knowing. For every person you recommend the game to, and they end up not liking it and thinking you're a complete and utter douchebag for recommending something like it, you'll find another person who would've never given it a shot, played it, loved it, and got turned on to something new.

Your job, in the end, isn't to PLEASE anybody. It's to be truthful, and present a convincing argument why a game is good. I didn't like Chrono Cross. I didn't like Castlevania: Harmony of Dissonance. I was in the minority for both of those games, but I wrote reviews saying I disliked them, and though I got people saying that I was stupid, I also heard from people who said, "You know what, I don't agree with you, but you at least gave reasons for why you didn't like the game. I can respect that."

 

[Dan]

And if I were to review a science-fiction JRPG with cel-shaded anime-style graphics, oldschool character designs, and an 80's hair-metal soundtrack, would I be right in scoring it a 10--basically, telling people 'spend your money on this!'--because those things are right up my alley, even though I know damn well that other people are going to hate the presentation and feel cheated if they buy it? Where does my responsibility as a reviewer lie in a case like that?

That's why reviews have text. The score should reflect how the reviewer feels about the game. Any worries about who should be playing the game should be dealt with in those words that form sentences that form paragraphs that form something called a review.

Any external factors deemed important, such as player's personal interests, game price, etc, should be mentioned in the review for readers to take note of, but they shouldn't be factored into a score.

 

[Kiriku]

I can kind of see his point though. Giving a score based on what he thinks "we" will like. That's a good thought, since he's giving us advice on what to buy, so we won't have to waste our hard-earned cash on some sub-standard software.

It's good in theory I must admit, but it doesn't work in practice due to that tiny, tiny, tiny little detail about "us" not sharing the exact same opinion.

 

[WarPig]

Who the fuck is this THE GAMING PUBLIC guy, anyway? Whoever he is, sumbitch needs an ass-kicking, because it seems like he's got un-fucking-believably terrible taste.

DFS.

 

[Soul4ger]

Who the fuck is this THE GAMING PUBLIC guy, anyway? Whoever he is, sumbitch needs an ass-kicking, because it seems like he's got un-fucking-believably terrible taste.

DFS.

You mean the guy who wrote it?

 

[chirills]

Miburou says,
"I don't really see the controversy. Aren't a lot of reviewers doing that? I mean, if a game is incredibly difficult to the point of being frustrating, won't it lose points, even if the reviewer is a gaming ninja? "


Ninja Gaiden and Viewtiful Joe both scored high, deservedly so. Those are 2 of the most diffucult games I have played this generation. So I would say no.

 

[ravingloon]

I can kind of see his point though. Giving a score based on what he thinks "we" will like. That's a good thought, since he's giving us advice on what to buy, so we won't have to waste our hard-earned cash on some sub-standard software.

It's good in theory I must admit, but it doesn't work in practice due to that tiny, tiny, tiny little detail about "us" not sharing the exact same opinion.

That and the fact of who actually owns Gamecubes. Kiddies and old-schoolers who LOVE Nintendo 1st party games. This is the audience and this audience is gonna love Paper Mario. So by fucking GI standards as stated, the game should score a 10.

 

[CrimsonSkies]

I like the mag, but they do have some weird reviews at times. At least it's not intentially jaded against or overwhelming pro for certain companies. Unlike other magazines.

 

[AssMan]

I thought Paper Mario on Nintendo 64 was boring. The battle system wasn't really fun and the environments weren't nothing to gock at, but IS did seem to do a great a job on some of the environments.

 

[All Hail C-Webb]

And if I were to review a science-fiction JRPG with cel-shaded anime-style graphics, oldschool character designs, and an 80's hair-metal soundtrack, would I be right in scoring it a 10--basically, telling people 'spend your money on this!'--because those things are right up my alley, even though I know damn well that other people are going to hate the presentation and feel cheated if they buy it? Where does my responsibility as a reviewer lie in a case like that?

You are nuts. This is a Mario game on a Nintendo console, it's what the people want. They say the the Gamecube is a console for kids, and then they dock games for pandering to that audience?
Should cute platformers on the PS2 and Xbox be given shitty scores (even if they are of high quality) just because the majority of Xbox and PS2 owners won't give a shit? You review the game based on it's quality, you leave it up to the consumer to decide if that game caters to their needs.
It's like reviewing a restaurant that serves snails and is called Snails only. The snails taste better than any you have ever tasted, and you know that people who eat snails will love these. Are you supposed to give the restaurant a bad score because most people don't like snails? No. You review the snails for what they are, letting people know that snails are an aquired taste, and let them decide for themselves.

 

[Soul4ger]

He means, who the fuck is he refering to when he says THE GAMING PUBLIC?

That went completely over my head. I think I just want to kick the reviewer's ass...

 

[WarPig]

That went completely over my head. I think I just want to kick the reviewer's ass...

I could give a fuck about the reviewer. I've written shit nine times dumber. GAMING PUBLIC, though, he's fuckin' asking for it.

DFS.

 

[chespace]

i think i understand what Jeremy from GI meant to say and it's not all that shocking. unfortunately, he didn't say it very well, which definitely compromised his point... if his first response was indeed how GI reviews games.

and the point of which is what some of you have already stated in here. basically, it's noble to be "inclusive" with your review by first having a general understanding of your magazine's audience. by getting a sense of their likes and dislikes, you can then write your review to reflect how you think they'd react to a game like paper mario 2. no doubt, the editors at GI probably know who reads their magazines better than most of you here.

i think it's very obvious now that they didn't have GAF in mind when lisa and jeremy penned their reviews.

 

[WarPig]

It's like reviewing a restaurant that serves snails and is called Snails only. The snails taste better than any you have ever tasted, and you know that people who eat snails will love these. Are you supposed to give the restaurant a bad score because most people don't like snails? No. You review the snails for what they are, letting people know that snails are an aquired taste, and let them decide for themselves.

Once upon a time I had a kinda half-finished essay in my head about a similar theory of game reviewing -- i.e., games are food. I should finish that one of these days.

DFS.

 

[Soul4ger]

I could give a fuck about the reviewer. I've written shit nine times dumber. GAMING PUBLIC, though, he's fuckin' asking for it.

DFS.

Got any links?

 

[iapetus]

Strange, seeing all this bitching about review scores. Now people are bitching because a site attempts to rate a game on what they think people will think of it, but I could have sworn that people had been bitching about people giving a game a review the score they thought it deserved in the past when that didn't correspond to the opinion of the 'masses' (read 'whiney bitches on gaming forums'). 6.8, anyone?

Honestly, some people don't deserve reviews...

 

[BobbyRobby]

Thank god I don't work at Gamestop anymore. I'd have a hard time selling GI/Discount Card to customers after reading this.

 

[ravingloon]

Strange, seeing all this bitching about review scores. Now people are bitching because a site attempts to rate a game on what they think people will think of it, but I could have sworn that people had been bitching about people giving a game a review the score they thought it deserved in the past when that didn't correspond to the opinion of the 'masses' (read 'whiney bitches on gaming forums'). 6.8, anyone?

Honestly, some people don't deserve reviews...

I'm bored. That's why I replied in this thread. That and the fact the logic is non-existent. But do I touch GI? No. It's a horrible magazine that would only interest me if I were camping, out of toilet paper, and found a magazine lying around and really needed to wipe my ass.

 

[WarPig]

Got any links?

Go through the IGN archives. You'll find whatchacall an embarassment of riches. Or a richness of embarassments, some shit like that.

DFS.

 

[Socreges]

i think i understand what Jeremy from GI meant to say and it's not all that shocking. unfortunately, he didn't say it very well, which definitely compromised his point... if his first response was indeed how GI reviews games.

and the point of which is what some of you have already stated in here. basically, it's noble to be "inclusive" with your review by first having a general understanding of your magazine's audience. by getting a sense of their likes and dislikes, you can then write your review to reflect how you think they'd react to a game like paper mario 2. no doubt, the editors at GI probably know who reads their magazines better than most of you here.

i think it's very obvious now that they didn't have GAF in mind when lisa and jeremy penned their reviews.

A lot of people addressed that point, though. In short, reviewers should review games as they perceive them, and judge games on their own merits. Define the target audience, but don't limit it.

Use your own judgement, rather than excusing them. Historically, which would you do:

a) 8.5 - exception: some people may be turned off by the subject matter
b) 6.75 - exception: we didn't mind the game's shortcomings

They're ultimately creating the perception of the reader, rather than projecting their own and letting each person decide for themselves, all information provided. It seems silly to me.

Strange, seeing all this bitching about review scores. Now people are bitching because a site attempts to rate a game on what they think people will think of it, but I could have sworn that people had been bitching about people giving a game a review the score they thought it deserved in the past when that didn't correspond to the opinion of the 'masses' (read 'whiney bitches on gaming forums'). 6.8, anyone?

Honestly, some people don't deserve reviews...

Maybe they were wrong!

 

[Dan]

and the point of which is what some of you have already stated in here. basically, it's noble to be "inclusive" with your review by first having a general understanding of your magazine's audience. by getting a sense of their likes and dislikes, you can then write your review to reflect how you think they'd react to a game like paper mario 2. no doubt, the editors at GI probably know who reads their magazines better than most of you here.

Unless the Paper Mario 2 review explicitly states that the score was lowered because it will supposedly be enjoyed only by people younger than 10 years of age (and the reviewers), then it's still misleading, condescending and inaccurate regardless of whether it's noble in theory. Sure, the bulk of GI's readers may have views similar to that, but I don't think you have to take a test before you subscribe to see if you qualify as their target audience. From what I've read the review text doesn't justify the score at all, and there's nothing proper about that. It's just pandering to a stereotype that the magazine has formed of its readers who are apparently not expected to do anything more than glance at a score.

It's poor journalism however you cut it, unless the actual text explains why the score was artificially lowered, which Jeremy has blatantly acknowledged happened.

But correct me if I'm wrong and the review somehow justifies how these guys had good fun with the game but managed to give it a collective 6.75.

Edit: and what Socreges just wrote rather succinctly.

 

[bishoptl]

Game Informer should be banned from publishing their magazine.

Sieg heil, mein Fuhrer! :lol