[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

I find it amusing that a PC gamer is demanding standardity on his platform. You were probably opposed to the switch to DVD (5 years after consoles did), too.

Yes, some ports were done in a lazy way and the menus weren't even changed, but the fact is that some games work best on a gamepad. For those games, the standard control scheme should be meant to be mapped on a gamepad. It's that simple. If you can't appreciate the hardware superiority that PC gaming offers (i.e. being able to play every game in the way that it should be played), then you shouldn't be a PC gamer in the first place.

Gamepads can be bought for less than $30. Do yourself a favor and buy one.

Nibroc420

Here you are, comparing the PC to a console again. You obviously fail to see that PC gaming is superior, hardware-wise, and doesn't hinder game development with ridiculous concepts such as "standard controls".

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Why can't they "obviously" maintain a playerbase on the PC? What sucks about the games? Why would the millions of PC gamers collectively avoid action-adventure games (and fighting games)?

Nibroc420

I find it amusing that a PC gamer is demanding standardity on his platform. You were probably opposed to the switch to DVD (5 years after consoles did), too.

Yes, some ports were done in a lazy way and the menus weren't even changed, but the fact is that some games work best on a gamepad. For those games, the standard control scheme should be meant to be mapped on a gamepad. It's that simple. If you can't appreciate the hardware superiority that PC gaming offers (i.e. being able to play every game in the way that it should be played), then you shouldn't be a PC gamer in the first place.

Gamepads can be bought for less than $30. Do yourself a favor and buy one.

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Why is it fine for games to require video cards that cost $100+, yet they can't require $20 gamepads? There's no excuse for a PC gamer not to have one, period. The PC is not a console, there is nothing "standard" about it.

Also, the "PC gamers don't play that kind of game" idea is insanely ridiculous. Who would spit on variety? If I was a PC-only gamer, I sure as hell would want every genre to be covered on my platform, and not just a select few.

Nibroc420

Why is it a "stuid" idea, and why are you asking for less variety on your platform of choice?

Why can't they "obviously" maintain a playerbase on the PC? What sucks about the games? Why would the millions of PC gamers collectively avoid action-adventure games (and fighting games)?

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

[QUOTE="F1_2004"]uh because every player has their own preferences of game genres, and it just so happens most PC gamers aren't big fans of fighting games, hence why the average sales of this game.F1_2004

Are you saying that the millions of PC gamers collectively avoid certain genres, which are otherwise doing fine on other platforms?

Yes I am saying that.

That makes a lot of sense. PC controls don't work well for those genres. Oh wait...

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Why is it fine for games to require video cards that cost $100+, yet they can't require $20 gamepads? There's no excuse for a PC gamer not to have one, period. The PC is not a console, there is nothing "standard" about it.

Also, the "PC gamers don't play that kind of game" idea is insanely ridiculous. Who would spit on variety? If I was a PC-only gamer, I sure as hell would want every genre to be covered on my platform, and not just a select few.

Nibroc420

Why is it a "stuid" idea, and why are you asking for less variety on your platform of choice?

uh because every player has their own preferences of game genres, and it just so happens most PC gamers aren't big fans of fighting games, hence why the average sales of this game.F1_2004

Are you saying that the millions of PC gamers collectively avoid certain genres, which are otherwise doing fine on other platforms?

Why is it fine for games to require video cards that cost $100+, yet they can't require $20 gamepads? There's no excuse for a PC gamer not to have one, period. The PC is not a console, there is nothing "standard" about it.

Also, the "PC gamers don't play that kind of game" idea is insanely ridiculous. Who would spit on variety? If I was a PC-only gamer, I sure as hell would want every genre to be covered on my platform, and not just a select few.

Well, Ninja Gaiden was rated incredibly well across the spectrum of sites and magazines and it's one of the more difficult games ever made. DMC3 also got mostly positive reviews and it too was incredibly demanding. Personally, I see complex and difficult games scoring well all the time. Games like God Hand and Ikaruga did well, and despite some flaws, Ninja Gaiden II received mostly high scores.

If the issue is questioning the validity of game reviews as a gauge of absolute quality, you're preaching to the choir. I view reviews as merely a way to glean information on games but I take any editorial with a grain of salt and ultimately trust my own tastes above any critic. Fun is not something that can realistically be quantified, though I do think certain aspects of a quality game should be obvious to anybody with a working knowledge of the medium. I do agree that those numerical scores can, at the end of the day, be useless, but like any medium the idea of criticism is that we will eventually reach a consensus on certain games and the quality they represent. Like any theory, there will often be dissent, but without some critical system in place, there is no point in discussing videogames beyond the parameters of a consumer product.

As to Fire Pro Wrestling, I'm not going to refute your opinions because frankly, you've played the game more than me. My experiences were different than yours, perhaps from a lack of time investment, but regardless my original point remains: Fire Pro Wrestling Returns was greeted well critically despite lacking mass appeal and exposure, which was the crux of my earlier counterpoint. I really don't see any gulf separating games with mass appeal versus smaller niche titles in terms of critical reception and with all due respect, you haven't offered any evidence to the contrary.

Grammaton-Cleric

Ninja Gaiden, while hard, still had plenty of mass appeal. It's a ninja game, it's gory, it was the prettiest console game when it came out, etc. God Hand and Ninja Gaiden 2 really didn't score all that high (mostly lower than 8 ).

Ikaruga only received high scores because of the "we're supposed to like it" effect. No reviewer would dare say "too hard, 5.5" (like they do with so many games) after his competitor said "work of art! 8.5". Evidence of that effect: the DC version averages 81 on Metacritics, the GC version, 85, the 360 version, 88, and they're all the same game. Did it increase in quality over time while staying the same? No, it increased in mass appeal, however. Notice how it is the only game in its genre that received any praise at all from the mainstream world since Radiant Silvergun (and before that, we're talking about the 16 bit era).

Yes, Fire Pro Returns was well received, but not to the extent that it would have been if game reviewers scored games based on quality alone. Scores around 7.5 just aren't fitting for a game that is probably the best game in its genre that was released in the western world, considering that so many before it got 9+ with ease.

There are other examples. The whole shoot 'em up genre is getting massacred in reviews (see: Giga Wing Gamespot review for a striking example of that). When's the last time that an adventure game scored higher than 8 here? No (real) wargame will ever score 9+ at Gamespot. "Steep learning curve" is actually a "the bad" icon at gamespot

Very high scores are reserved for games with very high mass appeal, and that isn't really a bad thing, as long as people stop caring about scores so much. Professional reviewers aren't qualified to properly rank games; their job is to tell you if you should buy a game or not.

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

"Mass appeal" = the ability to appeal to a lot of different people.

Every Smackdown game has been inherently broken reversal and finisher-fests. The latest ones are completely unplayable though. Can Shawn Michaels punch HHH in the latest one?

What's wrong with core mechanics out of the early 90s? Fire Pro Wrestling Returns is a balanced, skill-based game that beautifully recreates the flow of a wrestling match. If it allowed for more striking, it would pretty much be perfect.

Grammaton-Cleric

I've got no problems with your definition of mass appeal, but that definition can be applied pretty liberally. It can also shift based on changes in trends and the popularity of certain genres. There was a time when Street Fighter and fighting games in general had mass appeal but in my estimation, that mass appeal has greatly decreased. Much of what defines mass appeal is simply exposure. GTAIV isn't an easy game by any means but I agree that it has mass appeal for a number of reasons. However, I still don't see a correlation between that appeal and high review scores. GTAIV is an expansive, compelling and well-made game, which is why most critics were so enamored with it. If the game had played like True Crime, I don't think GTAIV would have scored so many outstanding reviews, mass appeal or not.

As to Smackdown being inherently unbroken, I disagree. Some of the earlier PS2 versions were incredibly well made and were also very balanced and skill based. I think broken is a fair adjective to describe the last three entries of the series but as a whole it's been a solid franchise.

Lastly, Fire Pro Wrestling doesn't play nearly as well as you claim, at least in my personal estimation. The auto grappling mechanic feels random and the hit detection is less than stellar, even for what is essentially a 2D fighter. I like the game but I actually think the GS review was pretty spot on because the game play really isn't that great, even taking into account its retro sensibilities. My point wasn't to knock older game mechanics either because frankly, I think some of the old SNES WWF games actually played better than Fire Pro Wrestling Returns.

It's easier to see how mass appeal affects game reviews by looking at how a lack of mass appeal pretty much always means receiving a lower score. A lot of PC games get lower scores for being hardware-demanding. How many hard and/or complex games ever score higher than, say, 8.5? Of course games that appeal to a lot of people will be good more often than not. The thing is, though, that video game reviews are there to tell the reader if he is likely to enjoy a game or not. A game that scores 10 is not necessarily of higher quality than a game that scores 7.

The core gameplay of Smackdown games has always been to spam power moves and finishers while reversing every other power move and finisher of your opponent. Add 20 meters, button mashing and useless mini-games, and you have some really bad wrestling games. Don't get me started on moves that can't be reversed, irrealistic movesets, bad collision detection (Smackdown relies heavily on gimmick matches; it is ridiculous that it couldn't have at least Day of Reckoning-level collision detection), etc.

Fire Pro's auto-grappling works really, really well. The fact that it is based on timing and momentum makes superb wrestling matches possible. Yes, the hitboxes are small, but that's more of a design decision than anything. Japanese wrestling isn't all that much about brawling. It can't be compared to other 2D fighters tbh. Fire Pro compels the player to skillfully create interesting wrestling matches.

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"][QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"][QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Gaming scores have little to do with actual quality. They're about mass appeal. GTA has high mass appeal, so it gets high scores again and again. Fire Pro Wrestling Returns has very low mass appeal, so it gets a relatively low score despite its high quality. Professor Fizzwizzle has 0 hype and low mass appeal, so it doesn't even get a review.

Grammaton-Cleric

The problem with this theory is that I see original franchises and new IP's score very well all the time and I've also seen larger franchises get lower scores when a weak entry is released. I do agree with you that some games have a much higher level of exposure but I've seen plenty of original games get equal amounts of praise despite being released below the radar.

Fire Pro Wrestling Returns is an interesting game to bring into this discussion because in many ways, it actually invalidates your theory. The game was released as a budget title with literally no promotion (it took me weeks to find a copy at a store) but most of the reviews for the game were actually pretty positive. Several reviewers actually called it the best wrestling game on the market and it generally received better scores than the most recent Smackdown game.

Then you have games like No More Heroes, which received generally favorable reviews, and that game is about as niche as they come. Other recent games to score well critically despite having a low level of exposure are God Hand, Okami, N+, Red Star and Odin Sphere.

Personally, I just don't see the correlation between exposure and quality. For example, I'm expecting the upcoming Too Human to take a pretty severe beating critically in the coming months, and that game has been getting coverage for years.

Sorry, but I can't recall ever hearing of Professor Fizzwizzle. I'd give the game a 10 based on the title alone however.

The recent Smackdown games are nearly unplayable. It's not very hard to outscore that type of trash, whether the scoring system is based on quality, mass appeal or number of fairies present in the game. And it still took professional reviewers several insanely horrible Smackdown games before they stopped dishing out 9+ to every new entry.

You missed my point and confused hype and mass appeal. Plenty of new franchises have tons of mass appeal.

Professor Fizzwizzle is an amazing puzzle game that got completely ignored by mainstream gaming publications.

Perhaps you should better define what you consider mass appeal because that term can mean any number of things, from accessibility in the casual market to a wide spectrum of exposure through the media and advertisements.

As to Smakcdown, it's been a very good franchise up until the last few years and even then, calling it "trash" is hyperbolic and inaccurate. I own Fire Pro wrestling Returns and frankly, beyond the insane level of customization, the core mechanics are something out of the early 90's. It's a Japanese niche franchise that was released over here at 14.99 at the end of the PS2's lifecycle and the game looks and plays like something on the Super Nes. It doesn't deserve AAA scores.

"Mass appeal" = the ability to appeal to a lot of different people.

Every Smackdown game has been inherently broken reversal and finisher-fests. The latest ones are completely unplayable though. Can Shawn Michaels punch HHH in the latest one?

What's wrong with core mechanics out of the early 90s? Fire Pro Wrestling Returns is a balanced, skill-based game that beautifully recreates the flow of a wrestling match. If it allowed for more striking, it would pretty much be perfect.