Support NeoGAF

[kamikaze]

wind waker got a 10 from game informer. i guess it would've been a 15 if it wasn't teh kiddie.

 

[Brofist]

A review is an opinion, you either agree or disagree plain and simple. In this case many people (and probably for good reason) disagree. Let it go.

I think it's funny that some people don't feel complete about their game purchase until the following criteria are met: it gets 100% glowing reviews from every publication, receives nothing but praise from every single post on a message board, out sells the competition 10x over..etc...

 

[Rocket Punch]

There's many things that I hold against GI.

The fact that the main and the secondary reviews are usually 0.25 in difference. I mean, you're gonna tell me these reviewers don't discuss and influence each other when 95% of their reviews follow the same pattern?

The reviews of the Mario Party series: MP3 40.0%, MP4 30.0%, MP5 20.0% Geez I wonder what Mario Party 6 is gonna score... Seriously, I'm all for personal preference in games but what if they did this with any other game genre? Well, I don't care for baseball so I'm gonna score this one game here a 15%. That is so irresponsible. The games are good at what they do. Why don't they get someone who enjoys the series to review them?

This falls directly into the Paper Mario 2 fiasco. Just who exactly are they expecting this game is going to cater to? Hasn't Mario always been cute and funny and accessible to all ages?? Do they honestly think that anyone is going to get this game expecting anything other than what it is?? So it is cute and colorful, well FUCK hasn't any other Mario game had mushrooms, goombas and koopas?? I mean COME ON!!!

And that stupid excuse is just that. Stupid. It only serves the purpose of providing a glimpse on just how flawed and downright absurd their reviewing methods are.

I remain in disgust...

 

[AniHawk]

PS: I believe this is the point where you call me stupid and say that my magazine sucks.

You are stupid and your magazine sucks.

Well, it's good to let them stick to their guns. I can't help but think if it might've been better to have the second opinion of one who found the qualities of a game likeable? I don't really care, because I have a really good feeling I'll enjoy the game, but if you knew it was going to cause a huge amount of controversy, maybe that could have been a better way of going about things.

Anyway, I think you showed a lot of balls by coming out in the open and explaining them yourself. And it's good to know you respect their right to an opinion so much that you didn't force them to change it (or go behind their backs or whatever. I don't know. I don't work for game mags).

That's not to say that other people in this thread haven't made good points as well. But really guys, it's just two people.

 

[cybamerc]

I see all kinds of tastes that find their way here, and I think people are a little quick to call others wrong or stupid for a differing opinion.

The problem is not the review but rather that your subordinate makes a horrible argument.

"Like we said in the review, it's a very kiddie game - it's target audience is clearly young gamers - I would say 10 and under. For that reason, we had to score it low."

That statement is simply so ridiculous that I'm truly amazed anyone will bother trying to justify it (not just you). He's holding games up to a completely arbitrary standard and if I were you I'd be embarrassed to represent such ignorance.

 

[norinrad21]

GI shouldn't be allowed anywhere close to Nintendo games or any 3rd party games on a Nintendo console ever again.

Both of them (Jeremy and Lisa) are hardcore gamers

Oh please, the average Joe would have given this game a better score than they did and with a good reason too.

Personally i hope your PS2 readers realize you just told them Enter the Matrix is a great piece of act.

 

[Mega Man's Electric Sheep]

" know Jeremy stated in his post that he felt he was considering the game buying public when he was writing his review, but what he was trying to convey was that he felt that our reviewer's point-of-view is not unlike others in the gaming public, and that by making their views known, he was serving gamers (which IS something we are trying to do). Not everyone loves this type of game - I think our review is proof of that."

HMMMM......let's look back, shall we?

"Remember, we aren't scoring games strictly on our personal opinions, we're also scoring them based on how much we think THE GAMING PUBLIC will like them. We've all played games that we personally disliked and scored them well because we've known that most people will like them, and we've also scored games low that we love, because most people won't enjoy them."


I'm sorry, I don't buy your backtracking damage control. He said something really dumb and was called on it, and now you're trying to change what he said. The evil internet with its misunderstandings is not at fault. He said he scores games well that he does not like! In plain English! How is that making his views known to serve gamers?

 

[Socreges]

Jeremy, who wrote the post that you so openly quote, is extremely misunderstood in this whole matter.

We do not, and I will repeat, we do not review games based on what people will think of the title. I called him on it this morning, and he was upset that the whole thing is not being understood the way he had intended it to be. The internet, as we all know, is full of trappings and misunderstandings.

PS: I believe this is the point where you call me stupid and say that my magazine sucks.

No, this is the point where we repost what was said.

GI-Jeremy wrote:

Lisa and I both knew that our Paper Mario scores were going to cause controversy. Yes, we know that many people out there will love it. We also know that it is a well-made game. However, it also WILL NOT appeal to many people - I would safely say that more people will dislike it than like it. Why? Like we said in the review, it's a very kiddie game - it's target audience is clearly young gamers - I would say 10 and under. For that reason, we had to score it low. Remember, we aren't scoring games strictly on our personal opinions, we're also scoring them based on how much we think THE GAMING PUBLIC will like them. We've all played games that we personally disliked and scored them well because we've known that most people will like them, and we've also scored games low that we love, because most people won't enjoy them.

FOr example, I really like the bizarre frog golf game Ribbit King, and I gave it a 7, because it's just not for everyone. Paper Mario 2 also scored low because it's just not for everyone. If you think it's a 10 in your book, it's a ten in your book, and that doesn't change if we disagree. We're here to guide you on what games to pick up, but ultimately your personal opinion is what will make you buy a game or not.

I hope this helps.

Trappings of the internet? Sounded pretty clear to me.

But when I challenged them on it over and over they stuck to their guns (and I gave them a crapload of grief on their reviews). I admire them for that. They went against the grain, and they believe and stand by the scores they gave.

Then he should have mentioned that ONCE while addressing the "controversy".

While I think it's nice that you tried to clarify everything, Hemmdog, as if you needed to, you're pretty clearly contradicting what's been said and simply trying to protect the reputation of your magazine. You shouldn't be worried, though. I don't think this has resonated with anyone that would bother buying it to begin with.

 

[tenchir]

This is what I love about the internet, there is really no way for you to backtrack yourself and not get caught.

While I respect the people at GI to stick to their guns, their reviewing method is just plain flawed. What's the criteria in deciding who will review what games? If I were a videogame reviewer and was told to review sports game, I will damn well give the majority of those sport's games reviewed low scores because I don't like sports game in general, would my reviews still be valid?

 

[Yusaku]

A review is an opinion, you either agree or disagree plain and simple. In this case many people (and probably for good reason) disagree. Let it go.

Jesus fucking Christ. Have you not been reading the thread? The whole issue here is that this review ISN'T an opinion, but rather a prediction of how the "GAMING PUBLIC" would score it.

I don't know why the reviewers just didn't say "I hate the game, so fuck off," instead of lying (according to Andy) and putting the magazine's integrity into question.

 

[DDayton]

Time to start my OWN gaming magazine!

"Silicon Dysentary -- A Journal of Gaming & Violent Opinions"

Anyone interested in a writing position? I pay in cardboard.

 

[Yusaku]

^^^ I propose we leave all scores blank, and let the reader fill them in.

 

[Sho Nuff]

Hemmdog, no good can become of this. The best technique for dealing with GAFssassins is to ignore them and let the thread die.

You have just doomed it to +200 more replies and more baseless threats of "I WILL NEVER READ YUOR MAGAZINE AGAIN" (even though nobody here reads mags as we get news updates by the minute).

 

[DDayton]

^^^ I propose we leave all scores blank, and let the reader fill them in.

That's a good idea, but we'll have to take it a step further....or, to use "cool" parlance, kick it backwards up the flip side, homie... let's release two seperate versions of the magazine -- one with scores, one with empty score boxes; this will make the magazine highly collectible and boost sales.

Wait! Better yet, let's release 43 different copies of the magazine each month, each containing a different set of scores for every game. We can leave the review itself intact, as the contents of a game review have very little bearing on the numerical score, right?

 

[Scalemail Ted]

That's a good idea, but we'll have to take it a step further....or, to use "cool" parlance, kick it backwards up the flip side, homie... let's release two seperate versions of the magazine -- one with scores, one with empty score boxes; this will make the magazine highly collectible and boost sales.

Wait! Better yet, let's release 43 different copies of the magazine each month, each containing a different set of scores for every game. We can leave the review itself intact, as the contents of a game review have very little bearing on the numerical score, right?

Or post the reviews in the magazine and make the reader go to their website to view the numerical score.

 

[DDayton]

Or post the reviews in the magazine and make the reader go to their website to view the numerical score.

Only if we charge $49.99 a year for premium website access. Free users should be restricted to ads and the titles of any articles in the print version.

Hey, can we get Drinky as our resident GameCube reviewer? I mean, most of the market is just PS2 gamers anyway, so all we really need is Drinky telling folks to BUY A PS2 instead of actually reviewing any of the games.

 

[gofreak]

^^^ I propose we leave all scores blank, and let the reader fill them in.

Edge did this one month, and it was very interesting.

Game Informer is weak. You can't place yourself in the mind of your audience in order to judge a game. People are diverse. You can only review a game based on your own experience with it. Anything else lacks credibility imo.

 

[Azih]

yeah, they seem to be guessing at the results of an American Idol show here, not 'reviewing' the game.

 

[Folder]

For them to say essentially "We will tell you that games we think you like are good," is amazing.

Surely the point in reviewing is to tell the reader what the reviewer thinks.

 

[SonicMegaDrive]

Sorry if old.

GI-Jeremy wrote:

Lisa and I both knew that our Paper Mario scores were going to cause controversy. Yes, we know that many people out there will love it. We also know that it is a well-made game. However, it also WILL NOT appeal to many people - I would safely say that more people will dislike it than like it. Why? Like we said in the review, it's a very kiddie game - it's target audience is clearly young gamers - I would say 10 and under. For that reason, we had to score it low. Remember, we aren't scoring games strictly on our personal opinions, we're also scoring them based on how much we think THE GAMING PUBLIC will like them. We've all played games that we personally disliked and scored them well because we've known that most people will like them, and we've also scored games low that we love, because most people won't enjoy them.

FOr example, I really like the bizarre frog golf game Ribbit King, and I gave it a 7, because it's just not for everyone. Paper Mario 2 also scored low because it's just not for everyone. If you think it's a 10 in your book, it's a ten in your book, and that doesn't change if we disagree. We're here to guide you on what games to pick up, but ultimately your personal opinion is what will make you buy a game or not.

I hope this helps..

 

[Stryder]

WTF, That is retarded.

 

[signet]

A dioramic Mario RPG, I don't think there could be a game that would appeal to a smaller minority.


1st it is an RPG, so you have a small fan base already.

2nd the graphic style is very unusually and will turn off some.

3rd it is a Mario RPG, sorry but when I think of a deep and involving story line the Mario universe does not come to mind.


Yes maybe PM2 is a good game to some people, but I think it is a safe bet that a rpg like ToS has more universal appeal.

 

[Shiggy]

The Germany the "Bravo Screenfun" also has this system. Enter the Matrix was a really good game (according to them)

 

[Grubdog]

A dioramic Mario RPG, I don't think there could be a game that would appeal to a smaller minority.


1st it is an RPG, so you have a small fan base already.

2nd the graphic style is very unusually and will turn off some.

3rd it is a Mario RPG, sorry but when I think of a deep and involving story line the Mario universe does not come to mind.


Yes maybe PM2 is a good game to some people, but I think it is a safe bet that a rpg like ToS has more universal appeal.

Uh, yeah, tell me that again after it sells a million copies.

 

[Drensch]

Ok look...I need to clear something up. First off, I'll fess up a little. I'm Andy McNamara, EIC of GI (I'm screwing up my anonymous status here, so bear with me, and yes, I know you don't give a shit who I am). Jeremy, who wrote the post that you so openly quote, is extremely misunderstood in this whole matter. We do not, and I will repeat, we do not review games based on what people will think of the title. I called him on it this morning, and he was upset that the whole thing is not being understood the way he had intended it to be. The internet, as we all know, is full of trappings and misunderstandings. Yes, Jeremy and Lisa do not like the game. As EIC I challenged them on the review many, many times. All the staff knew that the review would not be openly accepted. But the reality is, whether you choose to believe it or not, they did not like the game. I have not played the game in its entirety. I personally believe the game to be better than the 6.75 that they scored it. But when I challenged them on it over and over they stuck to their guns (and I gave them a crapload of grief on their reviews). I admire them for that. They went against the grain, and they believe and stand by the scores they gave. What are we to do? Force people to change their scores? Change the scores because we know that people will be pissed? I think you already know the answer to that question, as we let the review fly. We are not changing reviews to please the public. If that was the case, we would have given this an eight and been done with it. I know Jeremy stated in his post that he felt he was considering the game buying public when he was writing his review, but what he was trying to convey was that he felt that our reviewer's point-of-view is not unlike others in the gaming public, and that by making their views known, he was serving gamers (which IS something we are trying to do). Not everyone loves this type of game - I think our review is proof of that. Rip on Game Informer all you like, but I won't force someone to change a review. Yes, I will question and challenge them on what they write, but in the end an opinion is just that - an opinion. Who am I, or anyone else, to question anyone's view? The world needs more media that will pick a stance and stand by it in my personal opinion. Both of them (Jeremy and Lisa) are harcore gamers, and both loved Superstar Saga. They both didn't like The Thousand Year Door. So be it. I respect the Gaming Age forums crowd as the hardest of the hardcore, and love to read these boards, but at times I think things get a little out of hand. I see all kinds of tastes that find their way here, and I think people are a little quick to call others wrong or stupid for a differing opinion. It's a video game. God knows I love them. And I love the ones I like even more, which is one of the reasons I visit these boards - to read what people who are passionate about games like myself have to say about games. Video games are truly the greatest entertainment medium in the world. And I, like you, love to argue over right and wrong, but at some point you just have to let things go as a point you simply can't agree on. Cheers, Andy PS: I believe this is the point where you call me stupid and say that my magazine sucks.

Unless this bs and Jeremy's bs is appended to the review I think the GAMING PUBLIC won't understand--I predict they will think 4.2 on GI

 

[signet]

Uh, yeah, tell me that again after it sells a million copies.

Like Pikmin 2?

 

[Brofist]

Jesus fucking Christ. Have you not been reading the thread? The whole issue here is that this review ISN'T an opinion, but rather a prediction of how the "GAMING PUBLIC" would score it.

I don't know why the reviewers just didn't say "I hate the game, so fuck off," instead of lying (according to Andy) and putting the magazine's integrity into question.

Yeah and I already commented on both those points before...so maybe you need to go back and read ;P The fact is I know it's bullshit...so believe me I agree with you...

what I'm saying is however lame it may be at the end of the day it's an opinion...as twisted and skewed the reasoning may be, that's all it is. For most people here they'll still enjoy PM, and the sun will still rise in the morning.

 

[Leviathan]

To Hemmdog

Nice damage control attempt there, but it doesn't change my opinion that Game Informer's reviews are worthless. Seriously, I felt like vomiting when I read this:

Lisa and I both knew that our Paper Mario scores were going to cause controversy. Yes, we know that many people out there will love it. We also know that it is a well-made game. However, it also WILL NOT appeal to many people - I would safely say that more people will dislike it than like it. Why? Like we said in the review, it's a very kiddie game - it's target audience is clearly young gamers - I would say 10 and under. For that reason, we had to score it low. Remember, we aren't scoring games strictly on our personal opinions, we're also scoring them based on how much we think THE GAMING PUBLIC will like them. We've all played games that we personally disliked and scored them well because we've known that most people will like them, and we've also scored games low that we love, because most people won't enjoy them.

FOr example, I really like the bizarre frog golf game Ribbit King, and I gave it a 7, because it's just not for everyone. Paper Mario 2 also scored low because it's just not for everyone. If you think it's a 10 in your book, it's a ten in your book, and that doesn't change if we disagree. We're here to guide you on what games to pick up, but ultimately your personal opinion is what will make you buy a game or not.

This is an absolute disgrace. The "maturity level" of this industry is sinking to new lows and Game Informer's piece of shit reviews are speeding up the process. In the movie industry, you don't hear the reviewers say, "OH TEH NOES!1!1!! I really enjoyed Shark Tale but I'm going to give it a low score because it is teh kiddie!1!1 and therefore I think people won't enjoy it". IMO, it is moronic reviewers like the ones at GI that need to grow up.

 

[Alcibiades]

Like Pikmin 2?

it's already at 400,000 in Japan.

Finding 600,000 in sales in US/Europe shouldn't be hard at all...

 

[signet]

it's already at 400,000 in Japan.

Finding 600,000 in sales in US/Europe shouldn't be hard at all...

I guess if you count the numbers from enough territories and give it enough time anything is possible.

 

[nubbe]

I guess if you count the numbers from enough territories and give it enough time anything is possible.

That is kind of how business works

 

[Grubdog]

Like Pikmin 2?

Yes.

 

[Alcibiades]

I guess if you count the numbers from enough territories and give it enough time anything is possible.

uh, tell that to Driv3r. I doubt it's hit a million yet even worldwide.

 

[sprsk]

I have to sell game informer subscriptions to people.

 

[Brofist]

uh, tell that to Driv3r. I doubt it's hit a million yet even worldwide.

Ummm

Despite the lackluster reviews DRIV3R has received since its release last week, it's still selling like hotcakes. It hit store shelves on June 21 in the states and on June 22 in Europe and Australia. Since then it has reached number one status on non U.S. sales charts, and as of June 24 had sold 2.5 million woldwide.

 

[Alcibiades]

It's sold 900,000 to customers and the rest are sitting on store shelves, believe me...

 

[Brofist]

It's sold 900,000 to customers and the rest are sitting on store shelves, believe me...

Believe me, I'd be happy if 2,499,999 were sitting on the shelves cause the games sucks..but the game was number 1 on Europe and US, I'd be hard pressed to believe that it had a 40% sell through rate though

 

[Soul4ger]

Ahahahaha, this is priceless. How can you actually try to explain it when the guy says, "We don't like certain games, but we give them high scores because we think people want us to!" Of course, we could reflect back and see my response to the Reverend, in which I said, without numbers, most writers wouldn't be able to articulate how they felt about a game. But, come on -- No one is stupid enough to get this confused.

 

[Alcibiades]

Believe me, I'd be happy if 2,499,999 were sitting on the shelves cause the games sucks..but the game was number 1 on Europe and US, I'd be hard pressed to believe that it had a 40% sell through rate though

uh, the US-fairy tale didn't last but a couple of weeks, losing the summer battle to Spiderman 2 and NFL 2k5.

I doubt it's actually passed 500,000 in the US alone, though I don't have clear NPD numbers in my head right now...

 

[Razoric]

Hemm this is what you get for pissing off the Nhorde. Just give every Nintendo made game a 9 and you'll be fine.

 

[Deleted member 284]

Hemm this is what you get for pissing off the Nhorde. Just give every Nintendo made game a 9 and you'll be fine.

Please bugger off. Legitamate concerns over this review (not unlike the NG C-) and all you can do is troll.

 

[ge-man]

Hemm this is what you get for pissing off the Nhorde. Just give every Nintendo made game a 9 and you'll be fine.

Come on, this has little to do with the score itself. It was the justification that is disappointing. They should've grew some balls and said straight out that they didn't like the game and they should've supported that view with examples of the game's failings. Instead, we get some new age standard of criticism that involves factoring in the appeal of the game to the mainstream. That's a BS excuse that allows the reviewers to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[cybamerc]

I don't see the comparison between this review and GA's review of Ninja Gaiden. The problem is not the score but the fact that the reviewer tries to justify it by holding the game up to some arbitrary standard. If he doesn't like the game he should've just said that. All the other excuses are simply pitiful.

 

[sprsk]

Hemm this is what you get for pissing off the Nhorde. Just give every Nintendo made game a 9 and you'll be fine.

nintendo fans are the only people that do this *cough* fable *cough* ninja gaiden *cough*.

 

[Soul4ger]

Come on, this has little to do with the score itself. It was the justification that is disappointing. They should've grew some balls and said straight out that they didn't like the game and they should've supported that view with examples of the game's failings. Instead, we get some new age standard of criticism that involves factoring in the appeal of the game to the mainstream. That's a BS excuse that allows the reviewers to have their cake and eat it too.

The guy didn't even think to say he didn't like it at first, because he admitted it's a quality game. He was in fact being honest about their review policy, but that's the last thing the magazine likely would've wanted. He said they scored it based off what their audience might think. And, even as their EIC might want us to think that he just got his words confused and explained it poorly, you can not deny the fact that he said "We've played games we didn't like, but scored them higher..." The English there seems pretty straightforward, and I don't know how anyone could've mixed that up. But whatever. This is getting irritating. I love the people who thanked the Editor-In-Chief for responding in the thread, like he did us some great service. Oh, wait, he called us the hardest of the hardcore. That's not some unabashed attempt at flattery or anything. Garsh, thanks!

 

[Alcibiades]

I'm a little confused, did he like it but didn't think gamers would, or did he not like it like that GI guy said in this thread?

 

[Soul4ger]

I'm a little confused, did he like it but didn't think gamers would, or did he not like it like that GI guy said in this thread?

Lisa and I both knew that our Paper Mario scores were going to cause controversy. Yes, we know that many people out there will love it. We also know that it is a well-made game. However, it also WILL NOT appeal to many people - I would safely say that more people will dislike it than like it. Why? Like we said in the review, it's a very kiddie game - it's target audience is clearly young gamers - I would say 10 and under. For that reason, we had to score it low. Remember, we aren't scoring games strictly on our personal opinions, we're also scoring them based on how much we think THE GAMING PUBLIC will like them. We've all played games that we personally disliked and scored them well because we've known that most people will like them, and we've also scored games low that we love, because most people won't enjoy them.

You can make up your mind for yourself. Apparently, even if they don't like it, which they never really clarify in this post, they do say it's a "well-made game," which you think, by itself, would warrant higher than a slightly above-average review. But, that much really is an opinion. It's not so much the score most people are frustrated about, but the method of scoring.

 

[levious]

PS: I believe this is the point where you call me stupid and say that my magazine sucks.

Correction, your Funco Newsletter isn't at all relevant.

 

[MC Safety]

oh snap! disco stu be cryin' a river of tears 2nite.

On a snow-white pillow for my big, fat head.

 

[DrLazy]

Ok look...I need to clear something up. First off, I'll fess up a little. I'm Andy McNamara, EIC of GI (I'm screwing up my anonymous status here, so bear with me, and yes, I know you don't give a shit who I am). Jeremy, who wrote the post that you so openly quote, is extremely misunderstood in this whole matter.

We do not, and I will repeat, we do not review games based on what people will think of the title. I called him on it this morning, and he was upset that the whole thing is not being understood the way he had intended it to be. The internet, as we all know, is full of trappings and misunderstandings.

Yes, Jeremy and Lisa do not like the game. As EIC I challenged them on the review many, many times. All the staff knew that the review would not be openly accepted. But the reality is, whether you choose to believe it or not, they did not like the game.

I have not played the game in its entirety. I personally believe the game to be better than the 6.75 that they scored it. But when I challenged them on it over and over they stuck to their guns (and I gave them a crapload of grief on their reviews). I admire them for that. They went against the grain, and they believe and stand by the scores they gave.

What are we to do? Force people to change their scores? Change the scores because we know that people will be pissed? I think you already know the answer to that question, as we let the review fly. We are not changing reviews to please the public. If that was the case, we would have given this an eight and been done with it.

I know Jeremy stated in his post that he felt he was considering the game buying public when he was writing his review, but what he was trying to convey was that he felt that our reviewer's point-of-view is not unlike others in the gaming public, and that by making their views known, he was serving gamers (which IS something we are trying to do). Not everyone loves this type of game - I think our review is proof of that.

Rip on Game Informer all you like, but I won't force someone to change a review. Yes, I will question and challenge them on what they write, but in the end an opinion is just that - an opinion. Who am I, or anyone else, to question anyone's view? The world needs more media that will pick a stance and stand by it in my personal opinion.

Both of them (Jeremy and Lisa) are harcore gamers, and both loved Superstar Saga. They both didn't like The Thousand Year Door. So be it.

I respect the Gaming Age forums crowd as the hardest of the hardcore, and love to read these boards, but at times I think things get a little out of hand.

I see all kinds of tastes that find their way here, and I think people are a little quick to call others wrong or stupid for a differing opinion. It's a video game. God knows I love them. And I love the ones I like even more, which is one of the reasons I visit these boards - to read what people who are passionate about games like myself have to say about games.

Video games are truly the greatest entertainment medium in the world. And I, like you, love to argue over right and wrong, but at some point you just have to let things go as a point you simply can't agree on.

Cheers,

Andy


PS: I believe this is the point where you call me stupid and say that my magazine sucks.

Spin, spin, spin.