Showing 21 to 31 of 31
21. Posted: Fri 25th Sep 2009 02:50 BST
MM9 got lower than 10 only because Capcom's crew didn't post in the comments. What a corrupt site.
Come on, friends,
To the bear arcades again.
22. Posted: Fri 25th Sep 2009 03:19 BST
I definitely don't see that. I remember the devs posting stuff all the time here, and there being a lot of hype for bit boy on the site. When it came out though, the review gave it a 5. They do rank WW games higher here than most sites, but I think the reason for that is they are taking into account the price of the games and respect it as a service and review it from that perspective, unlike the disdain given for WW on other websites. The reviews for WW are the most thorough I've seen, so you can read the review itself and really make a decision if this is the type of game for you. Lastly, I feel like it's fairly uncommon to see anything below a 4 for most review sites, so NLife is not really alone on this one. For most people, unless they are loaded and have tons of free time to game, 6's and probably most of the 7's probably will get passed over unless it's a genre they really like. There are too many "excellent" games out there to play. Bottom line, it's like movies, books, retail games, or anything else. If you're not sure, read a review. Reading what's good and bad about the game is more helpful than the score itself. If you're still not sure, read a second review somewhere else. Eventually, you'll probably find some reviewers who have similar tastes as you, and you will probably disagree with others most of the time.
Although, it does pose the question, if you so dislike this site (you always seem to have some issue with it), why do you spend so much time here? I'd understand little things that you'd just seek to improve, but feeling the review scores are generally inaccurate is a pretty big issue with a review site. If I felt that, I would move to greener pastures. It's why I don't subscribe to Nintendo Power, because I don't think the reviews there would be fair given they're owned by Nintendo.
I am way too lazy to think of something clever.My BackloggeryPokemon Platinum FC: 0517 9582 3270Pokemon SS FC: 4512 4783 5710Mario Kart DS FC: 4211 7712 2928
23. Posted: Fri 25th Sep 2009 04:32 BST
Look, I knew this would spawn some 'if you dont love america get the hell out' comments, so I will leave them alone, no need to bicker bash.
Here is the first paragraph form the family tennis review :
One of the very first Wiiware games was also the first in Aksys’ “Family” series: Family Table Tennis. We gave it a fairly generous 5/10 score considering we labeled it “outclassed,” “hard to recommend” and even “un-loseable.” Well, it seems that someone at Aksys was paying attention as nearly all of our criticisms have been addressed in this new-ish release. But how much of an improvement has Aksys served up?
This is what set me off, but I could mention a bunch of other examples. Why is that game getting a 5? Outclassed, hard to recommend, un-loseable. To me that is not an average game. Why are reviewers being, by their own addmision, 'fairly generous'? I say look out for the game buyer, we are this site, it is our money that gives these developers work. Yes the text is more important than the score, but should they not logically match? The line is blurred, are text criticisms simply nitpicking a solid game or are their deeper problems? Will this game be fun and worth my money???
There are many 'glut games' on wiiware that are very unremarkable in the areas of game design, innovation, originality, excecution etc, it would give more credibility to the site and to see them seperated from games that try.
I am not attacking the site or anyone, I am just bringing this up for review and disccusion.
You also have to admit the developer comment section bantering would cross the lines of traditional journalism ethics.
These are meant to be broad discussions, I hope they do not draw attacks instead. I just wonder if sometimes things can get a little too grass roots.
Edited on Fri 25th September, 2009 @ 04:35 by orlick
Ben Cartwright: You and your education. Adam Cartwright: Education is progress! Now what have you got against it? Ben Cartwright: I don't have anything against education - as long as it doesn't interfere with your thinking!
24. Posted: Fri 25th Sep 2009 04:37 BST
I think you're perfectly within your rights to say what you feel Orlick. I'm one of those reviewers who always tries to find something good to say about every game, but I don't allow the contact with developers to cloud my judgement. There are a few developers that will no longer deal with me, and that's fine. I can't help that. But when I put my name on the review, it's what I think, and there's no two ways about it. You might not agree with my reviews, but nobody, and I mean nobody influences my final reviews. Period. That's all I was saying. Not trying to attack you for having an opinion.
Edited on Fri 25th September, 2009 @ 04:38 by Corbs
Retro Editor, Nintendo Life
Vita Editor, Push Square
25. Posted: Fri 25th Sep 2009 04:43 BST
I understand that Corbie, it is good to hear.
26. Posted: Fri 25th Sep 2009 12:49 BST
You do realize they do this job for free and common sense would tell you they are just like me and you. They are donating their time to this site and I would imagine it would take a lot for them to cater to developers via reviews. Trust me there are a few I do not agree with but for the most part I think they do a pretty good job.
27. Posted: Fri 25th Sep 2009 13:18 BST
Is a 5 really considered an average score? I feel like if a game scores a 5, that's pretty bad. It seems like most reviews work similarly to a grading system: 9-10 is similar to an A, so it's excellent. 8 is like a B, so it's pretty good too. 7 is like a C, so it's not terrible, definitely playable, but not amazing. You should exercise caution to see if it's a game you'll personally like. 6 is like a D, so not great, but will still probably appeal to some players. Anything lower than that is just different degrees of bad. I'm not sure if that's how it's stated it is, but it seems like following that logic fits pretty well with the review scores. This would make a game that is "outclassed" and "difficult to recommend" worthy of a 5. The games not unplayable, but it still fails in the "worth buying" sense. Plus, if you actually take the time to read the whole review, you can easily know it's not very good, because they said all these things about it in the review.
I could be completely wrong and that's not how review scores are described, but I feel like every site syncs up their scores this way. I don't read a 5 as an "average" score, I see it as a bad score.
That's the issue with numbers being subjective, it's all on how you interpret them in the end. It's best if the explanation of the score numbers on the site reflects that though, especially for people who may be checking out reviews online for the first time. I have no idea how scores are described here though and admittedly, I am too lazy to find them.
It sucks that there are devs that will stop working with reviewers and possibly websites after a lousy review. Especially since Corbie's reviews are very professionally done. He does point out the good and bad aspects of a game, and the flaws are never presented in a personally insulting manner. The real losers are the devs, who are missing out on some free advertising for their next game by not working with the staff by releasing previews, interviews, etc. to present the game to this site's readership. This site is perfect for WW developers, because it hits their target market exclusively, so it's a waste for them. Especially when you consider most have advertising budgets of nothing. I've had a job where I've had to market on zero budget, and it sucks! Still, thanks for being awesome Corbie.
Edited on Fri 25th September, 2009 @ 13:21 by Token_Girl
28. Posted: Fri 25th Sep 2009 14:08 BST
When Nintendo Life was set up it was promised that the aggregate user score star sytem would be reimplemented somehow from VC-reviews. Why hasn't this come to fruition? Surely that would help solve the problems being discussed on this thread.
Edited on Fri 25th September, 2009 @ 14:09 by Luigi-La-Bouncy
29. Posted: Fri 25th Sep 2009 16:18 BST
We're independent and proud, we shall not have corruption in our honest reviews
Managing Director, Nintendo Life | Push Square | Pure Xbox
Nintendo Network ID: anthonyd | Twitter: antdickens
30. Posted: Sat 26th Sep 2009 07:19 BST
The text of a review is ten times more important to me than the score. I know there are practical reasons why the score needs to exist. But people who are serious about choosing games wisely should read the reviews, top to bottom, and use that to make their decisions.
Put your analyst on danger money, baby.
31. Posted: Tue 29th Sep 2009 12:39 BST
Getting direct contact from devs is great (Eno-san contacted me out of nowhere after finding my review of Kimi to Boku to Rittai on my blog), but I cannot say I've been moved to write a review any differently because of it. I've not been contacted prior to writing one anyway.
But with regards to whether or not we can tell people what games are worth spending their money on -- I mean we don't know you so how do we know what game you will like? I can only give my own opinion and try to temper that with a degree of objectivity if the game's subject matter or genre is something I don't enjoy, but you seem to be looking for guarantees which is slightly unrealistic.
I like a lot of arcade puzzle games so Spaceball and Magnetis got good scores from me; some other staffer might have been less enchanted with them. I think Space Harrier is overrated rubbish regardless of platform; some people think it's treasure. I like Altered Beast and think it's one of Segas best arcade titles; James dislikes it more than I dislike Space Harrier.
Bottom line: if you're uncertain about a game it probably pays to read more than one review -- even if it's here!
BLOG, mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Nintendo ID: sean.aaron