@Heil68: I see what you meant now, haha.
DKCountry: Tropical Freeze reivew is up, 6/10, FLOPPAGE
This topic is locked from further discussion.
@Shinobishyguy: I never said it was anywhere near that level, I said it was hyped. And it was. Quite a lot. It was one of the games nintendo fanboys were clinging on to to rescue this year for them.
I actually decided to read this review. It's so poorly done, it reminds me of Jeff Gerstmann's style. I like how in the conclusion, he suddenly forgets to mention the quality of the visuals, and so he shoehorns it in there when he is supposed to be summing up the last couple of paragraphs. It seems rushed to me. He didn't even mention anything about the sound.
Its getting superb to good reviews everywhere else, so how can anyone take this one really seriously?
The reviewer obv. didn't care for the game. I take it as a gain of salt.
@Renegade_Fury said:
Now this is some funny shit to drink my coffee to: So the first of the supposed Wii U game changers strikes out, and it looks like Donkey Kong's mediocrity has rubbed off on Retro.
You guys care way too much about scores both on here and metacritic, and it's kind of sad to see how dependent you're on them to justify whether a game is worth playing or not.
I do not really see what is wrong with using metacritic TBH. gaming is an expensive hobby and thus it isn't really a bad idea to see a game's reputation before spending money on it. Sounds better to me than just buying any game on impulse.
Yeah I know Metacritic doesn't count right? bla bla bla.... 82 over there by the way... 30 some reviews... and wouldn't you know it the lowest review is from the struggling gamespot. There are better ways to drive traffic to your site... you know... like honest reviews and not having 10,000 ads everywhere.
I have not even played the game and I was thinking it was probably a 7 or 8. Appears the industry agrees with my uninformed guess compared to the experts here... lol
I wouldn't be surprised if they gave Titanfall a 10...
I'll wait to see what IGN gives it... unless they already posted it.. one second I'll go look...
*edit* 90 on IGN.
good thing I only come to this site for system wars and a good laugh... that is all the reviews are anymore.. I remember a few years back before this site started to sell out that the reviews were decent... of course that was back when we had user reviews and up/down votes... so the discrepancies were much tighter. It's almost like they just have 6,7,8,9, and 10 in a hat and randomly choose a number these days... lol
@Demonjoe93 said:
I mean I use them to help me decide how much money I want to spend money on it. I have played games that got mediocre reviews and liked them (Shadow the Hedgehog; no, I am not joking), and have played games that have gotten awesome reviews and didn't like it all (Dark Souls). If it's a game that I'm quite sure I am going to like, then I only care about the reviews if they're unexpectedly low. If they are low, then I start looking into the game and may decide it's not worth forking over $60 or $40 for it, and then wait for it to get cheaper. If it's a game that I'm really on the fence about, I wait and see how much everyone else liked it before I decide to spend money on it, and even then I prefer to play a demo first.
Unfortunately, demos aren't used as much as they used to be.
Agreed, there should be more demos like there used to be. But some devs say they cost lots of resources they'd rather put in the main game. And also, some demos can show you a part of the game that is really fun and the rest of the game can be disappointing. Even then I'm still a fan of them.
See, this is what I like to hear. Because I too, have played games that scored really low and liked them more than some really high scoring ones. I think every has, who at least is willing to give games that score low a chance.
There is this misconception among some gamers that everything below a 70 is utter crap. And it's a real shame to see that, as we can both agree: some games below that score are absolute gems, just not for everybody.
There are many good ways to decide if a game is worth your hard-earned cash. Scores have way too much weight unfortunately. So some people miss out on otherwise great games.
@Minishdriveby said:
@GamingGod999 said:
Is Metacritic relevant again?
As relevant as GS.
No it isn't. Since when was that decided?
The benefit of Metacritic is also it's downfall. There are so many scores swayed by granting privileges like early reviews, and probably outright bribery as well. It's better to find a few sites that you trust rather than accept that awful cauldron known as Metacritic.
And around here GS scores are a trusted review site. I know it isn't perfect but it's definitely one of the better ones.
@DJ-Lafleur said:
@Renegade_Fury said:
Now this is some funny shit to drink my coffee to: So the first of the supposed Wii U game changers strikes out, and it looks like Donkey Kong's mediocrity has rubbed off on Retro.
You guys care way too much about scores both on here and metacritic, and it's kind of sad to see how dependent you're on them to justify whether a game is worth playing or not.
I do not really see what is wrong with using metacritic TBH. gaming is an expensive hobby and thus it isn't really a bad idea to see a game's reputation before spending money on it. Sounds better to me than just buying any game on impulse.
If you can't tell that you'll like a game from watching gameplay footage, I don't know what to tell you. I know I can at this point, and I don't need arbitrary numbers from a bunch of strangers to justify it for me. Also, gaming is a relatively cheap hobby unless you're a retro gamer. Maybe if you're a little kid I can buy that, but as a general statement, no, it's really not.
@speak_low said:
@Demonjoe93 said:
Because, you know, cows never did that with Last of Us. What's with your fixation on sheep?
It's not simply who does it - every fanbase does it. It's who does it the most, and factually-objectively I have proof that Sheep air out the most fierce hostility towards game reviewers.
When you are with your brethren you don't notice it and are desensitized to these hypocrisies. To you it's a normal day at the office. To me it's irritating and I'm pointing it out.
If I never said anything, threads like these would go on forever about how Gamespot reviewers are garbage, or how Eurogamer is utter trash (because they also gave DKC:TF a rather disappointing 7/10) - but just a few months later you'll be awaiting Gamespot and Eurogamer's early reviews for Mario Kart 8, Bayo 2 and SSBU.
You only like reviewers when the scores are 8/10 or above, but if it's 7/10 you start searching obsessively for every past review they've done to find a good way to discredit their entire body of work and make you feel better.
I recognize this Sheep script and I'm tired of seeing it played out like a bad movie. I'm not going to sit here watching this bad film unfold before my eyes again and not say anything about it.
Actually Eurogamer really love the game... it's just that it felt more of the same compared to Returns to them.
But GS said it was straight out boring and lacks variety. I know it's an opinion but they are the only site saying so. ;/ Sorry I'd rather believe the rest for now, until I play it myself.
@GunSmith1_basic said:
No it isn't. Since when was that decided?
The benefit of Metacritic is also it's downfall. There are so many scores swayed by granting privileges like early reviews, and probably outright bribery as well. It's better to find a few sites that you trust rather than accept that awful cauldron known as Metacritic.
And around here GS scores are a trusted review site. I know it isn't perfect but it's definitely one of the better ones.
Maybe in the past, but now? No way. Now they've gotten involved in political agendas and movements, they've lost community members, outsourced reviews and recently expanded on their review range. More often than not these days they're on the high or low end of the pack, which strongly suggests they're doing this to stand out during a time of low popularity.
On top of all that, there are very few GS review supporters anymore, especially compared to days of old.
@GunSmith1_basic said:
@Minishdriveby said:
@GamingGod999 said:
Is Metacritic relevant again?
As relevant as GS.
No it isn't. Since when was that decided?
The benefit of Metacritic is also it's downfall. There are so many scores swayed by granting privileges like early reviews, and probably outright bribery as well. It's better to find a few sites that you trust rather than accept that awful cauldron known as Metacritic.
And around here GS scores are a trusted review site. I know it isn't perfect but it's definitely one of the better ones.
yeah.. so you are saying it balances out? I agree. Just like gamespot did the reverse giving a bad score to drive traffic to their new ad driven money making scheme.
GS WAS a trusted review site... WAS. Ever since the "site changed" this site has been a laughing stock... and really, before then the coding and things were broken for a few years... it has been a long time since this has been a super relevant site. But like ay old dog it has it's seniority to throw around.
@bbkkristian: Whilst we are on the subject here is yet another hype thread
http://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/donkey-kong-country-tropical-freeze-hype-thread-aa-29416607/
@freedomfreak said:
I'm gonna complain about this review even though I haven't played it myself!
If the reviewer makes bad points, then I don't see why you can't complain about the review. What if the reviewer said, "Seriously? You're a monkey who acts like a human? That's dumb, 6/10." That's an extreme circumstances of course, but GameSpot reviewers have gotten awfully close before (and yes, I know he's an ape).
Let's take Jeff Gerstmann's review of Metal Gear Solid as an example: "Once you know exactly what to do and skip as much plot as possible, you can run through the game in three hours or less." Without playing the game, you can tell that Jeff Gersmann is a fat dumbass that doesn't know what he's talking about. Even lengthy games like Dark Souls, Demon's Souls, Super Mario 64, Banjo Kazooie, Paper Mario, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, etc. can be beaten in under three hours.
So yes, I will say this review is stupid. Because it is.
@Lucianu said:
@g0ddyX said:
How can you argue with the Nintendo sites that give it an 8/10 and 8.5/10 score? :S
Funny how the lower end spectrum are like the TOP gaming sites and magazine reviewers.
People can avoid the game and spend the time on more worthwhile games.
Only Destructoid so far has given it 10/10 like they have done to other Nintendo games, check em.
The quotes i've used are from other reviews from Nowgamer 7/10 and Gamesbeat 7/10.
DK was hyped AAA and GOTY...
I'm not arguing anything, i'm saying that as i've seen on Metacritic, the majority is the higher end of the review spectrum. Destructoid, Game Informer, Gametrailers, IGN, Nintendo Life and a number of other review sites have given the game a 10 - 9 score, plus the flood of 8.5s and 8s by other sites. The minority is @ around a 7, which = good, and the oddball is Gamespot with questionable criticism.
Out of 31 review sites on Metacritic, 11 are at 9/10 or above, 13 are at 8/8.5, 6 sites are at a 7/10 and Gamespot is at a 6. So you've got 24 positive reviewers saying the game is generally great, 6 that say it's good, and one that says it's fair.
Neither you or I know if the game is worthwhile because we haven't played it. But, what we can do is look at the feedback, and there's no doubt in my mind that given the critic response and gamer response via people that got it early (as seen on NeoGAF), it's most definitely worthwhile and not recommended to be avoided.
Yes, it was hyped on this forum and it flopped hard. But that is irrelevant on such a worthless, insignificant and unserious forum filled with about a dozen good posters and a ocean of bored children trolling for attention. Also a dying forum to boot.
All my findings and quotes are from metacritic. The Nintendo sites are like 8/10 and 8.5/10
The MAIN gaming sites and magazines gave it poor scores, considering its a Nintendo Exclusive.
7/10 EDGE
7/10 EUROGAMER
7/10 GAME.
That is the majority right there instead of Pro-Nintendo sites.
By looking at the gameplay videos and reviews and guides, you can avoid the game and save money. Unless your a Nintendo fan, go for it.
But with other big titles already out and coming out, I personally would spend time and (effort) elsewhere.Even a multi-console owner struggles as you have to pick which games to pick and play.
The graphics are not good as they were supposed to be and level design is bland and bad."The game will frustrate less-enthusiastic players." and "doesn’t have anything new or exceptional to praise"
Gamespot is not the only site to give it a 6/10. Shacknews gave it 6/10.
6.0/7.0 for what is hyped a 9.0/10.0 score and GOTY is a major flop.
Considering the state of the Wii U, could it be any worse?
Here's a REAL review of the game http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2Faqi58LZY.
It's not opinion oriented, biased, and ignorant like the gamespot review is.
Can't wait to play it.
@g0ddyX: can you point out a thread where the official hype is AAA? Or where most people are saying it's going to get goty?
Yeah, stop making shit up
@Shinobishyguy said:
@g0ddyX: can you point out a thread where the official hype is AAA? Or where most people are saying it's going to get goty?
Yeah, stop making shit up
g0ddy cntinues is anti-Nintendo tirade, I see. Even overlooking that some not-so pro-Nintendo sites (ex: Game Informer, GameTrailers, and Destructoid) gave it high praise.
i still will pick this game up eventually
@g0ddyX: Hmm why are you ignoring the many non-Nintendo gaming sites that gave it a great score? -__- Also Eurogamer and EGDE love the game (did you even read their reviews?) and never mentioned bland visuals and boring level design like GS did.
@Renegade_Fury said:
@DJ-Lafleur said:
@Renegade_Fury said:
Now this is some funny shit to drink my coffee to: So the first of the supposed Wii U game changers strikes out, and it looks like Donkey Kong's mediocrity has rubbed off on Retro.
You guys care way too much about scores both on here and metacritic, and it's kind of sad to see how dependent you're on them to justify whether a game is worth playing or not.
I do not really see what is wrong with using metacritic TBH. gaming is an expensive hobby and thus it isn't really a bad idea to see a game's reputation before spending money on it. Sounds better to me than just buying any game on impulse.
If you can't tell that you'll like a game from watching gameplay footage, I don't know what to tell you. I know I can at this point, and I don't need arbitrary numbers from a bunch of strangers to justify it for me. Also, gaming is a relatively cheap hobby unless you're a retro gamer. Maybe if you're a kid I can buy that, but as a general statement, no, it's really not.
I agree that gameplay footage is probably the best way to determine if someone would like a game, and it is probably the biggest determining factor for me too. metacritic isn't the best way to find out if you'd like a game or not (certainly not by itself), but I do like to use it out of curiosity or to see if there may be some other issues or flaws present that I did not notice in gameplay footage or demos or whatever that are consistently brought up by a majority of people. Unless a game gets practically panned universally from critics and gamers alike, I'd probably still consider buying a game soon or down the road if the gameplay footage interested.
And fair enough on the it not being that expensive bit
"As challenging as the game is, it’s never unfair. It’s rare to come across a game that has you screaming profanities at the screen one moment in a fit of rage, and then jumping for joy the next as you finally succeed." -Gametrailers
"Tropical Freeze is a great challenging plattform game. More difficult than its predecessor, better HD visuals and great gameplay. This game is not for all kinds of gamers, but if you're a core gamer, it's for you." -Meristation
This is why I loved the first so much. It was an ultra well designed challenge that gave a true sense of accomplishment when you succeeded. That sense of overcoming something difficult is the main reason I game. I know this game has the challenge, but I also hope it has the enormous amount of content Returns offered.
Could've gotten a 1 and I still would've picked it up. How else would I be able to listen to OST of the forever?
@foxhound_fox said:
Another one of those laughable, attention-grabbing GS reviews.
Exactly. I have nothing vested in this game being good. Hell, I'm not even in to 2d platformers anymore, but anyone with half a brain can see the game is good for what it is.
Dat Damnage control!
Eh. I think GS's just trying to utilize the breadth of their scale. 6 is "fair". Though I do think that GS is attempting to send an underlying message to Nintendo with their score: "try something else". I have a feeling behind that score and review resides a large sentiment of fatigue and redundancy, and that's why it scored as it did. If Nintendo were taking more risks and being more experimental, it probably would've done better.
A gamespot review?
LOL
@speak_low: You and a few others are working VERY hard and going out of your ways to make the game look worse than it is. Why? What did a game company like Nintendo do to you that was so terrible and traumatizing? I'm all for good fun and pokes at stuff since this is SW, but why go after a company so hardcore as if you're immature kids with nothing better to do? It's reaching creepy and psychotic levels of weirdness.
I mean I don't like Microsoft much, but if I spent day and night attacking their games, fans and systems like you guys do I think I'd kill myself to make the world a better place. Seriously guys, go outside and make an attempt at a life.
I'm a Nintendo and Sony fan, I love games and the hobby and try to play as often as I can, but even I don't obsess with their games and systems as much as the haters do. See the problem with that?
This message goes to all the extreme fanboy factions out there, the alt accounts, fakeboys and paid propagandists: stop now before you require professional help and let your families down. There's still time to achieve normal status, like the rest of us regulars here.
@Bigboi500 said:
@speak_low: You and a few others are working VERY hard and going out of your ways to make the game look worse than it is. Why? What did a game company like Nintendo do to you that was so terrible and traumatizing? I'm all for good fun and pokes at stuff since this is SW, but why go after a company so hardcore as if you're immature kids with nothing better to do? It's reaching creepy and psychotic levels of weirdness.
I mean I don't like Microsoft much, but if I spent day and night attacking their games, fans and systems like you guys do I think I'd kill myself to make the world a better place. Seriously guys, go outside and make an attempt at a life.
I'm a Nintendo and Sony fan, I love games and the hobby and try to play as often as I can, but even I don't obsess with their games and systems as much as the haters do. See the problem with that?
This message goes to all the extreme fanboy factions out there, the alt accounts, fakeboys and paid propagandists: stop now before you require professional help and let your families down. There's still time to achieve normal status, like the rest of us regulars here.
Don't bother with speak_low who is a Nintendo hater through and through :) .. Nintendo haters try so hard but they only succeed at making me love Nintendo even more :D .. oh, and GS's review is a joke :|
@GunSmith1_basic said:
@Minishdriveby said:
@GamingGod999 said:
Is Metacritic relevant again?
As relevant as GS.
No it isn't. Since when was that decided?
The benefit of Metacritic is also it's downfall. There are so many scores swayed by granting privileges like early reviews, and probably outright bribery as well. It's better to find a few sites that you trust rather than accept that awful cauldron known as Metacritic.
And around here GS scores are a trusted review site. I know it isn't perfect but it's definitely one of the better ones.
It's acceptable when it is on the convenience of the fanboys. System wars rule state that this game flopped harder than TLOU.
looks like gamespot needed more material for feedbackula
@MirkoS77 said:
Eh. I think GS's just trying to utilize the breadth of their scale. 6 is "fair". Though I do think that GS is attempting to send an underlying message to Nintendo with their score: "try something else". I have a feeling behind that score and review resides a large sentiment of fatigue and redundancy, and that's why it scored as it did. If Nintendo were taking more risks and being more experimental, it probably would've done better.
Honestly I just don't get why reviewers are allowed to deduce big points from the review just cause the game is not a new IP or it doesn't have original ideas .. I mean what about the gameplay? Sound quality and effects? Graphics? Fun factor? Shouldn't these be the major factor in reviewing games?
If an editor wants to send a message to Nintendo about the lack of originality, it should be done outside a game review .. It should be done in an editorial or article or blog or whatever .. Game reviews are supposed to highlight the Pros and Cons of a game, and not include the opinion of an editor regarding why he thinks a developer needs to change some things as he sees fit :|
@Life-is-a-Game: It's not just Nintendo haters, but all the trolls/alts that have plagued this board for the past few years. They can't handle themselves when others don't share their views, they get mad and say ridiculous things, get banned, make new accounts and rinse/repeat.
None of the regulars act that way, because they're normal gamers and normal people who can communicate with others in a civil and mature way to talk about their differences and disagreements. That's why they never get their accounts banned and are consistently good posters.
These new "warriors" have adopted shameful and honor-less tactics of lies and confusion in a feeble and delusional attempt to disrupt the enemy the only way their powerless minds can. Very shameful stuff.
Another crappy exclusive for another crappy Nintendo console
@WitIsWisdom said:
yeah.. so you are saying it balances out? I agree. Just like gamespot did the reverse giving a bad score to drive traffic to their new ad driven money making scheme.
GS WAS a trusted review site... WAS. Ever since the "site changed" this site has been a laughing stock... and really, before then the coding and things were broken for a few years... it has been a long time since this has been a super relevant site. But like ay old dog it has it's seniority to throw around.
why do you get to just say that? What is your proof? By my view the inflated scores are the sell-outs, not the low ones.
I could point to various episodes where Gamespot was trashed endlessly but turned out to be right. Remember Skyward Sword? That game is a perfect example for why GS is a valued opinion but why Metacritic fails. The game is good but it has deep flaws. Maybe McShea's score was on the low side, but that rating still calls it a good game. Meanwhile on Metacritic the score is sky high because of the boatloads of perfect scores that the game got. If we accept Metacritic we also have to accept those perfect scores for Skyward Sword, which I'm not willing to do because those reviews are flat out lies.
Just because a negative review brings traffic doesn't mean that every bad score is proof that the site only gives reviews to generate traffic. Believe it or not every once in a while there will be high profile games that just aren't very good. Metacritic never takes a stand on any opinion. It's where every fan of a series goes when they want to see an inflated score for 'ownage' (well either that or IGN). Not valid imo.
@speak_low said:
It's not just Gamespot - other reviewers have mentioned things like "uninspiring" or "lacking innovation" regarding this game.
Go read the blurbs from the higher scores in the 80s too. DKC:TF, they feel, is a solid title and fun but you can notice that even in these positive reviews, quite a few reviewers felt that there could've been more (this is even mentioned in the Eurogamer review)
http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii-u/donkey-kong-country-tropical-freeze/critic-reviews
As more reviews are coming in, Gamespot's low review is getting more company. And even if their score is the lowest, the criticisms they mentioned are popping up in the other reviews too - even the positive ones.
To oversensitive fanboys, this means all of gaming journalism is bad and worthless to them. B-bu-but everyone give it 9/10 so that means you should too!! One crybaby Sheep on NeoGaf said he won't ever read Eurogamer again (I swear he posted that in the review thread...what a BABY)
But if you had a more rational head on, you'd understand that we should look beyond the scores and see what they are writing about the game. In positive and negative reviews, you actually see them share sentiments about the game's solid game mechanics but a feeling that innovation is lacking, especially for the Wii U that was should've added more to the experience.
Because there is a mixture of positive and negative points with this game, it's getting the average it deserves. You think this game is TLOU or something and should have over thirty 10/10 scores everywhere?
Maybe there is higher expectation for a system saturated with more than enough plaformers already. If you're going to release another platformer it should probably exceed all past ones. And if it doesn't, or not by much, don't expect the score to be very high!
You aren't wrong about some points. It's a sequel to a 2D platformer tho.... I don't think anyone expected innovation. I know many reviews mentioned it as a fault and I'm ok with that. Some reviewers think the awesome level design overshadow the familiarity while some think it's not enough. I understand that.
BUT that's NOT my problem with GS's review.
Bland visuals, lack of variety and dull level design. Those cons are only (unless I've missed some) mentioned on GS's review. He even said it's one of the least exciting platformers that he has played. Talk about brutal. :/ lol Dunno man, can't trust that review at all. Even if GS scored TF with a 7-7,5, I'd still be arguing those cons they gave.
Well an average over 80% isn't bad. What to do think? ;) AA is pretty much what most of us expected anyway.
Yeah some folks are overacting negatively about the reviews but I don't think being happy about a game flopping is much better tbh.
@GunSmith1_basic said:
@WitIsWisdom said:
yeah.. so you are saying it balances out? I agree. Just like gamespot did the reverse giving a bad score to drive traffic to their new ad driven money making scheme.
GS WAS a trusted review site... WAS. Ever since the "site changed" this site has been a laughing stock... and really, before then the coding and things were broken for a few years... it has been a long time since this has been a super relevant site. But like ay old dog it has it's seniority to throw around.
why do you get to just say that? What is your proof? By my view the inflated scores are the sell-outs, not the low ones.
I could point to various episodes where Gamespot was trashed endlessly but turned out to be right. Remember Skyward Sword? That game is a perfect example for why GS is a valued opinion but why Metacritic fails. The game is good but it has deep flaws. Maybe McShea's score was on the low side, but that rating still calls it a good game. Meanwhile on Metacritic the score is sky high because of the boatloads of perfect scores that the game got. If we accept Metacritic we also have to accept those perfect scores for Skyward Sword, which I'm not willing to do because those reviews are flat out lies.
Just because a negative review brings traffic doesn't mean that every bad score is proof that the site only gives reviews to generate traffic. Believe it or not every once in a while there will be high profile games that just aren't very good. Metacritic never takes a stand on any opinion. It's where every fan of a series goes when they want to see an inflated score for 'ownage' (well either that or IGN). Not valid imo.
Hey opinions make the world turn. I respect yours.
Now, to further my explanation. I am not saying that GS is always bias with reviews or always just trying to drive traffic. However there have been several incidents recently at a time where traffic has been low. I have been around these parts for years for a reason... this has been my favorite site for years...and that is not because I thought the reviews were bad. However, with that being said... they are now. Not all, but most.
Well.. who is to say they are bad? Me? No... I guess not.. however, when there are constant discrepancies with scores that just aren't adding up it make you wonder what is going on. most everybody I knew for years here has moved on to other more reliable sites... and it is no secret that traffic here has fallen off like crazy. Also, if you have not noticed the incredible amount of bias front page articles and ads you must be oblivious to reality. One day it's nothing but X1 ads and how it is the best console, and the next it's all about PS4. Perhaps people think that is to show how diverse they are? You think those ads are being hosted by this site free of charge? How about the fact you can click on them and they route you to another website? Traffic hits are driving monetary values... that was NOT SOMETHING the Gamespot I knew was all about.
Anyways, part of the console/system wars game was always that metacritic and other averaging sites did not matter... I played along and could agree with that when the competence of the website was top notch. These days it is little less than system wars and a cash grab. I own all three consoles and two gaming PC's, so when I see things out of place it makes me question things. When the AVERAGE score here is nearly 25 points under average from about 40 sites it seems a little odd... not to mention it's the LOWEST score. Seems like something like this happened with another blockbuster title not too long ago... hmmmm.
I have not added a game to my owned list in forever because of how much the quality of this site has deteriorated... at the same time I have not built my game list on another site either...perhaps because it would be so much work.
I will stay here because of my time invested and having no other place I think is any better. I am starting to lean towards giving IGN a closer look... however I'm not a fan of their forums.
Saying IGN is where every fan goes to see an inflated score? Really? You have some proof of that? I don't even know if I have an account there.... I think I have one at giantbomb... and.. that's about it... this is about the only forum I ever come to anymore other than the H-Hour forums for sofstudios.com where I work as a moderator.
Saying Metacritic never takes a stand IS THE POINT. It is an average of ALL half way respected game review outlets. Personally I don't look into reviews as being serious anyways since they are little more than opinion and I buy whatever I want regardless of reviews because I usually buy first and look second. I know some people don't have that luxury though and they depend on reliable sources to help make their purchasing easier. If I was here for the reviews I would have been gone a long time ago.
It is fun to watch people get upset when a game they thought was going to get scored well flop though... just like with this game.... lol.
If I were a sheep and getting upset that would be truly hilarious... but I have seen this happen recently with more than one of the big 3. If the trend continues it would be kind of hard for me to take even the console war arguments as being a true source of entertainment value due to laughable starting values.
well.. now that I have wrote my book it's time to find a publisher. lol.. No shots taken man. Seems we just have a slightly different opinion of how things have been shaping up around here as of late. I don't know how long you have been a member here, so if you haven't seen a shift in professionalism... maybe it is just me. I truly didn't know why this site had lost so many great members over the years until just recently.
@GoldenElementXL said:
Next lowest score for the game is an 8.0. The rest are above 9. Is Gamespot trying to make a point here? Are they trying to fix a review system with inflated numbers? Whatever they think they are doing I would be careful. This industry can be very harsh.
Gamespot has been really trying to be the worst review site lately.
Games that are actually fun and challenging are given crap reviews yet games that are annual brown regurgitation get gold stars showered on them.
@W1NGMAN- said:
I read the review, watched the review video, and I can tell 95% of the people complaining about the review literally took a look at the negatives and score and decided to comment. smh
Actually, I just watched the video and there were no examples to support his complaints. He said the game felt cheap yet all of the screw ups in the video were obviously player error.
I'm not saying he's wrong at all, I'll have to try the game for myself. I'm just not sure what you're getting at with your comment as the review and video do absolutely nothing to validate his claims.
The likelihood, then, is that people who played DKC Returns will find Tropical Freeze a little uninspiring. It's a superior game - it looks nicer, it's easier to control on the GamePad than it was on the Wiimote, and there's slightly more to do - but like a lot of Nintendo's recent sequels, that doesn't feel like quite enough. The craftsman has turned in a damn fine table, for sure, but the chances are you already have a table.
Perhaps there is a reason why 2d platformers were dormant for so long until New Super Mario Bros was released on the DS. There's only so much you can do with two dimensional planes, and eventually, you'll run out of ideas.
@Life-is-a-Game said:
@MirkoS77 said:
Eh. I think GS's just trying to utilize the breadth of their scale. 6 is "fair". Though I do think that GS is attempting to send an underlying message to Nintendo with their score: "try something else". I have a feeling behind that score and review resides a large sentiment of fatigue and redundancy, and that's why it scored as it did. If Nintendo were taking more risks and being more experimental, it probably would've done better.
Honestly I just don't get why reviewers are allowed to deduce big points from the review just cause the game is not a new IP or it doesn't have original ideas .. I mean what about the gameplay? Sound quality and effects? Graphics? Fun factor? Shouldn't these be the major factor in reviewing games?
If an editor wants to send a message to Nintendo about the lack of originality, it should be done outside a game review .. It should be done in an editorial or article or blog or whatever .. Game reviews are supposed to highlight the Pros and Cons of a game, and not include the opinion of an editor regarding why he thinks a developer needs to change some things as he sees fit :|
I agree with you. I'm not saying it's right or anything, but I just get a feeling from some sites (especially with GS) that an underlying resentment permeates through their Nintendo reviews that displays a degree of frustration and impatience towards their offerings. Not only them either. Read all of these quotes, one from even Joystiq which was a very good score:
Eurogamer (7/10):
"The likelihood, then, is that people who played DKC Returns will finid TF a little uninspiring. It's a superior game-it looks nicer, it's easier to control on the gamepad than it was on the Wiimote, and there's slightly more to do-but like a lot of Nintendo's recent sequels, that doesn't feel like quite enough."
Metro (7/10):
"A highly competent 2D platformer, but one utterly devoid of any new ideas or any reason to buy a Wii U in order to play it"
Joystiq (4/5):
"At this point, there's not much written here that couldn't have been repurposed from a review of DKR-and that's both the problem and the recommendation. Sure, there's swimming in lovely blue waters, a pleasant soundtrack by series composer David Wise, and even prettier backgrounds for Retro's ingenious levels, but meaningful growth is kept to a minimum. Such is the blessing and curse of refrigeration."
Gamespot: (6/10):
"None of its levels are bad, but while its competitors mix up elegant puzzles, platforming challenges, and clever new ideas to great effect, here your journey get very familiar, very quickly."
All of these speak not really of any inherent problem with the game itself, but more stemming due to Nintendo's late habit of playing it so safe and predictable. If Nintendo were offering a plethora of new IPs, taking huge risks, and its library benefited from a huge variety, do you think the above statements would exist? Probably not, and DK:TF would be appreciated for what it is, not being criticized for what it's not which is what a lot of the above demonstrates to me. It's obvious that these scores are heavily based upon these reviewers feeling too much genre/franchise fatigue. Many are simply getting very tired of Nintendo not really trying anything new and instead playing it so safe, and this is how they're showing it.
Yes, it's unfair and the wrong venue to do so. And sure, if an editor wants to send a message to Nintendo, there are other ways.......but few so powerful as a review which has the ability to directly impact sales to send a message to Nintendo that they (hopefully) would listen to. Many want Nintendo to start really going back to the old days where it wasn't petrified and took serious chances (not just low budget eshop games and medium investments like TW101), and until that day again comes I think we're going to continually see lower reviews for their titles, even if the quality hasn't dropped.
@MirkoS77: Super Mario 3D World begs to differ. (and by the same reviewer too)
The game flows effortlessly from one ingenious idea to the next, the levels intelligently designed to gently guide you toward their concepts without the need for a heavy-handed tutorial or swathes of help boxes.
It's not a bad thing reviewers hold Nintendo to a higher standard for new ideas, I consider it a compliment.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment