Eurogamer does it again!

  • 129 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#101 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -
@carlthenimrod said:

Oblivion on the PS3 came out only a year later, was a superior port, and had additional content packed in. That was enough to justify a full price point. What does Modern Warfare on the Wii have? Nothing really, except a spotty frame rate and friend codes. Also, I love Modern Warefare 2, but to say that it is a "different experience" is laughable. The core game-play mechanics are untouched for the most part and it plays the same. Not that there is anything wrong with that of course, but it is more of a refinement then anything.

I love how you pick tiny bits and pieces to respond to. "Only a year" huh? Well then, this is "only a year" more and has leaning and pointer controls as well as nearly no competition on this platform. A year later or a week later makes absolutely no difference if you've already had the chance to experience it on another platform really. Clearly, any re-release or later port of a game is intended for an audience that missed it, not for the same people to buy it all over again. And yes, MW2 is a different experience. The campaign is in completely different levels and situations as opposed to being the same campaign with "refinements". The multiplayer maps are also completely different, not just better versions of the past maps. The only thing you could call a "refinement" is the visuals and maybe the levelling up. The game is a different game, not merely a better version of the last one. As for the price matter, lol. I don't see them mention how it's worth 8/10 if you find it discounted or how it will be worth 8/10 in 6 months with the inevitable price drop at most retailers. Again, the price is up to the consumer, as is the possibility of having already experienced the game. Not to the reviewer who should review the game's quality. Games don't, or shouldn't get extra points for being "new". Again, eh, just read the last post which you mostly ignored. I'm not gonna repeat everything just because you decided to pretend the bulk of it isn't there with your response. Here:

@Al3xand3r said:

That is why I quoted Eurogamer's summary, because it clearly states the game is just as good now as it always was. Who the fuck cares anyway? It's up to the user to know if he has already had his fill of that game, not the reviewer to decide for him. If a game gets a 9/10 but I've already finished it even a few days ago on another platform I'm not going to rush to buy it again because a review said so. Reviewers shouldn't be trying to second guess if I have or haven't played it and base its score on that. Oblivion wasn't rated lower on the PlayStation 3 because it came a year later as it was clearly intended for the audience that has yet to play it and the reviews reflected that. The situation is the same with Modern Warfare:Reflex Edition. It's for people who haven't played it (or people who prefer Wii FPS controls). To claim it's rated lower because the reviewer assumes everyone has played the game already so it's not worth a replay is, frankly, stupid. This argument makes no sense. As for sequels reducing the value of the original, that's only when they're better or when they offer the same experience upgraded. MW2 is far from a mere upgrade of mechanics and content. It's a different experience. Tons of the MW content is still great and for someone who hasn't experienced it, should be recommended. Still, the Wii doesn't have the sequel, and all this ignores that the review discussed here claims Modern Warfare is still an awesome game, it plays better on Wii, yet is rated lower with the only notable shortcomings mentioned being visual, in attempts to derail the conversation. Sad.

#102 Posted by carlthenimrod (1594 posts) -
@Al3xand3r said:

" @carlthenimrod said:

Oblivion on the PS3 came out only a year later, was a superior port, and had additional content packed in. That was enough to justify a full price point. What does Modern Warfare on the Wii have? Nothing really, except a spotty frame rate and friend codes. Also, I love Modern Warefare 2, but to say that it is a "different experience" is laughable. The core game-play mechanics are untouched for the most part and it plays the same. Not that there is anything wrong with that of course, but it is more of a refinement then anything.

I love how you pick tiny bits and pieces to respond to. "Only a year" huh? Well then, this is "only a year" more and has leaning and pointer controls as well as nearly no competition on this platform. A year later or a week later makes absolutely no difference if you've already had the chance to experience it on another platform really. Clearly, any re-release or later port of a game is intended for an audience that missed it, not for the same people to buy it all over again. And yes, MW2 is a different experience. The campaign is in completely different levels and situations as opposed to being the same campaign with "refinements". The multiplayer maps are also completely different, not just better versions of the past maps. The only thing you could call a "refinement" is the visuals and maybe the levelling up. The game is a different game, not merely a better version of the last one. As for the price matter, lol. I don't see them mention how it's worth 8/10 if you find it discounted or how it will be worth 8/10 in 6 months with the inevitable price drop at most retailers. Again, the price is up to the consumer, as is the possibility of having already experienced the game. Not to the reviewer who should review the game's quality. Games don't, or shouldn't get extra points for being "new". Again, eh, just read the last post which you mostly ignored. I'm not gonna repeat everything just because you decided to pretend the bulk of it isn't there with your response. Here: "
So does DLC equate to a completely different experience? According to your definition, a map pack can be considered a "different experience" because the environments are different. What makes MW2 a similar experience to the first is the core game-play mechanics. Yea, there is a ton of new content, but there is no doubt that the game basically controls and plays the same. If someone hated the first Modern Warfare then they are going to hate this game as well probably.
 
And of course price matters. Going back to Doom, if that game came out for $50 on the XBLA, would it really deserve a good score? No, it would be a bad deal and giving it a good score would be misleading to readers. Yea, Doom is an awesome game that holds up surprisingly well after all these years, but it is not worth 50 bucks. The entire points of reviews are to recommend(or not) games to consumers. How you do that when not taking the price into consideration is beyond me. Imagine a game that was super awesome but was 2 hours long and cost $100. Now you are given the task to review this game. Now imagine the same game comes out at the price of $1. If that price difference doesn't impact your review score, then you are doing a crappy job. 
 
Lastly, you can't review a game based on the existing library of said game's platform. If that was the case, then every Virtual Boy game would be rated highly because the entire library of games suck.
#103 Posted by Jimbo (9800 posts) -
@ryanwho said:

"Well if you actually read the review, he says it played better. "

@Al3xand3r said:

"Of course, the review doesn't reflect that at all as it clearly states Modern Warfare is still a grand game a few times, it states it plays better on Wii, yet proceeds to rate it much less thanks to minor shortcomings detached from gameplay, such as the visuals."

Again, either quote it or find an argument that doesn't rely on invented statements.  Maybe it does say it, maybe I missed it.  Granted, that would certainly be a strange thing to say given the not-very-positive tone of the rest of the review.
 
Oh, and how many 10/10 reviews are there for Doom XBLA in your Metacritic link by the way?  Zero, and that's by XBLA standards at an XBLA price.  So that hasn't so much destroyed my own argument as completely justified it.  I honestly can't believe you're going to try and defend your position that the quality required for any given grade doesn't change over time (Ref: "The time frame of release has no bearing on the quality, and therefor the grade...").
#104 Posted by TheHBK (5474 posts) -

The fact that they even got this game to run is a miracle, it doesnt look as good, but neither does MW2 in my opinion as other games, but running at 60fps is awesome and a real game changer for a FPS and not only that, there is a lot of stuff that goes on in the game. I would be sure to give the game a 7 because I dont care if its MW, that controls on the wii just dont work for it, but classic controller/gamecube controller should be supported.

#105 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -

Ok, I re-read the review and it doesn't say it controls better on Wii (though some statements are contradicting, half the time saying if you're not happy with how it controls after all the customisation then you need drugs, then saying it's fiddly elsewhere), I only went by what ryan said there. Still, it does offer gameplay features not found on PS360, or even MW2, like leaning. Still, that was a minor part of my arguments there and its removal doesn't mean anything at all. I guess you focused on it because you know that already though.

As for Doom, yeah, 8-9/10 instead of 10/10 totally makes it so different and not a great game anymore, lol, especially considering some of the flawed features of the XBLA port that many reviews mentioned and would probably grant a higher score if they weren't there, yet still rated it great. I already mentioned this, why ignore it? Hell, maybe those reviewers would rate it 9/10 in 1993 as well for all you know, dur, the point is it was and is a great game. I did emphasise that Eurogamer's own reviewer, who also reviewed Reflex Edition, stated Doom is just as good now as it was back then. Of course you chose to remove that in your quote but, what more do you need beyond such a simple statement? So, I'm sorry, you did destroy your argument and are now nitpicking in futile attempts to save it. You can't dude. Not to mention Modern Warfare isn't 13 years old and you ignored most of my post which explained how the situation is different to your comparison even though your conclusions were false anyway.

@carlthenimrod said:

"So does DLC equate to a completely different experience? According to your definition, a map pack can be considered a "different experience" because the environments are different."

Dur, if you pay for a map pack then surely you're paying for a different experience, not what you've already played all over again. Otherwise, why pay? MW 2 has a different campaign with a different flow, different set pieces, different cut scenes, different story, different thrilling moments, and even very different situations depending on the levels. All that's "refined" in MW2 is the visuals. One can still prefer MW in everything else, and tons of people do find that campaign better. The same can happen with multiplayer maps. People can prefer the MW set over the MW2 set because, again, they're different and not just refined in everything but visuals. Until MW2 has a map pack with all the best MW maps (it's bound to happen but then what's going to be the total cost of this finally slightly "refined" and not just "different" experience by that time?) then it doesn't offer a refined experience, it offers a different experience. The levels, single and multi player, define the gameplay and the whole experience just as much as the core mechanics. This is simple to comprehend. I don't know why you can't, I'll stop trying since all I do is repeat the same simple things.

As for not judging games based on what's available on the same platform, bullshit. With all the praise PS360 visuals get it's evident that in some kind of ass backwards thinking the PS360 is considered the standard and the PC is considered beyond that standard, with clueless people like you praising PS360 visuals, condemning anything less (unless it's on a handheld they like), and making minor mentions of the significant improvements PC games offer as if they're simply above standard which is cool but not all that important or something along those lines. Bullshit. Hell even you two right here define different standards between games on the same platforms based on just the distribution platform, if they're on XBLA or in retail, lol. And you once again choose bits and pieces. Honestly, I'm sure that anything you respond with again, I've already countered in past comments more than once, so just re-read there and keep it up, I don't need to respond anymore just because you do selective reading, lol.

Anyway this is but one review, most rated it well or were at least sensible with their reasoning so it's all good. There are only a few absurd reviews from websites nobody visits anymore (like GameSpy, there aren't even any comments on their review page, lol) or people who try to be controversial or are simply clueless. People can feel free to prefer this type of review over others because it matches their opinion of the Wii, and they can try to justify it as the one correct view, but I'm sure at some point in time they'll disagree with this reviewer about another game and prefer another outlet's view that once again matches their opinion bettter, lol, always for things they have yet to experience too.
#106 Posted by carlthenimrod (1594 posts) -
@Al3xand3r said:
" Dur, if you pay for a map pack then surely you're paying for a different experience, not what you've already played all over again. Otherwise, why pay? MW 2 has a different campaign with a different flow, different set pieces, different cut scenes, different story, different thrilling moments, and even very different situations depending on the levels. All that's "refined" in MW2 is the visuals. One can still prefer MW in everything else, and tons of people do find that campaign better. The same can happen with multiplayer maps. People can prefer the MW set over the MW2 set because, again, they're different and not just refined in everything but visuals. Until MW2 has a map pack with all the best MW maps (it's bound to happen but then what's going to be the total cost of this finally slightly "refined" and not just "different" experience by that time?) then it doesn't offer a refined experience, it offers a different experience. The levels, single and multi player, define the gameplay and the whole experience just as much as the core mechanics. This is simple to comprehend. I don't know why you can't, I'll stop trying since all I do is repeat the same simple things.

As for not judging games based on what's available on the same platform, bullshit. With all the praise PS360 visuals get it's evident that in some kind of ass backwards thinking the PS360 is considered the standard and the PC is considered beyond that standard, with clueless people like you praising PS360 visuals, condemning anything less (unless it's on a handheld they like), and making minor mentions of the significant improvements PC games offer as if they're simply above standard which is cool but not all that important or something along those lines. Bullshit. Hell even you two right here define different standards between games on the same platforms based on just the distribution platform, if they're on XBLA or in retail, lol. And you once again choose bits and pieces. Honestly, I'm sure that anything you respond with again, I've already countered in past comments more than once, so just re-read there and keep it up, I don't need to respond anymore just because you do selective reading, lol. "
Sorry, but you're wrong about map packs. When you are buying a map pack for Call of Duty, it is because you want more Call of Duty. If you want a "different experience" you buy Peggle.
 
Also, last time I checked, the PC version of Dragon Age was rated higher then the 360 version. So once again, you are wrong sir. The PC platform is considered when reviewing games. 
 
The big difference between XBLA and retail are the prices. That is the only reason they are judged differently. Distribution methods are irrelevant when reviewing games.
#107 Posted by Milkman (16674 posts) -
@Meowayne said:
"

 The dude's the one comparing the wii with the 360/ PS3 saying it's just as good, that it deserves the same score.

As Adam said, I'm not. I even gave the single player a 6.5/10 above. I don't have a problem with the score, I have a problem with the justification for it and the nature of the review. And the rest.. well yeah. Again, as adam highlighted, with each post you're falling deeper into fanboy logic, allegations, assumptions, and flamebait indicating your unreflected and blind Wii hate that I think this was the reason for your replying in this thread to begin with.  Fuck system wars. I'm out. "
Oh the irony. You're one of the main causes for any "system wars" on these forums. If you didn't feel need to be part of the "Wii defense force" every time someone says something bad about the Wii on the internet, then this arguement would have never happened.
#108 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -
@carlthenimrod said:

Sorry, but you're wrong about map packs. When you are buying a map pack for Call of Duty, it is because you want more Call of Duty. If you want a "different experience" you buy Peggle.
 
Also, last time I checked, the PC version of Dragon Age was rated higher then the 360 version. So once again, you are wrong sir. The PC platform is considered when reviewing games.

More of Call of Duty is a different experience. If it was the same there'd be no reason to pay. For more elaborating, refer to my previous comment.
 
@Al3xand3r said:

Dur, if you pay for a map pack then surely you're paying for a different experience, not what you've already played all over again. Otherwise, why pay? MW 2 has a different campaign with a different flow, different set pieces, different cut scenes, different story, different thrilling moments, and even very different situations depending on the levels. All that's "refined" in MW2 is the visuals. One can still prefer MW in everything else, and tons of people do find that campaign better. The same can happen with multiplayer maps. People can prefer the MW set over the MW2 set because, again, they're different and not just refined in everything but visuals. Until MW2 has a map pack with all the best MW maps (it's bound to happen but then what's going to be the total cost of this finally slightly "refined" and not just "different" experience by that time?) then it doesn't offer a refined experience, it offers a different experience. The levels, single and multi player, define the gameplay and the whole experience just as much as the core mechanics. This is simple to comprehend. I don't know why you can't, I'll stop trying since all I do is repeat the same simple things.

Moving on, Dragon Age is at best an exception and not the rule. Dragon Age is rated lower thanks to the gameplay simply being bad on the console versions. It's not so much that it's worse than the PC version, as it's simply not good enough even if the PC version didn't exist. It just doesn't work well. If the PC version played the same it too would receive a low score, they wouldn't all receive the high score instead, lol. For example, the control gimping is not considered in FPS titles who are also gimped but still rated highly, once again showing Dragon Age is at best an exception. For the rest, refer to previous comments, you say nothing new that actually confronts my past statements. I keep showing that but you don't improve...
#109 Posted by carlthenimrod (1594 posts) -
@Al3xand3r said:

" @carlthenimrod said:

Sorry, but you're wrong about map packs. When you are buying a map pack for Call of Duty, it is because you want more Call of Duty. If you want a "different experience" you buy Peggle.
 
Also, last time I checked, the PC version of Dragon Age was rated higher then the 360 version. So once again, you are wrong sir. The PC platform is considered when reviewing games.

More of Call of Duty is a different experience. If it was the same there'd be no reason to pay. For more elaborating, refer to my previous comment.
You can build an epic list that lists every minute detail that was change from MW to MW2. But that still won't change the fact that the game plays and controls exactly the same. That is more then enough to make it a similar or familiar experience to the first.
 

  Moving on, Dragon Age is at best an exception and not the rule. Dragon Age is rated lower thanks to the gameplay simply being bad on the console versions. It's not so much that it's worse than the PC version, as it's simply not good enough even if the PC version didn't exist. It just doesn't work well. If the PC version played the same it too would receive a low score, they wouldn't all receive the high score instead, lol. For example, the control gimping is not considered in FPS titles who are also gimped but still rated highly, once again showing Dragon Age is at best an exception. For the rest, refer to previous comments, you say nothing new that actually confronts my past statements. I keep showing that but you don't improve... 

Oh please, FPS controls are not gimped on 360/PS3. They're just different.
 
If you want examples of games with gimpy controls on consoles, go take a look at any RTS released on both platforms and you will see the PC version was considered most definitely.
#110 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -
@carlthenimrod said:

Oh please, FPS controls are not gimped on 360/PS3

Yes they are.

@carlthenimrod said:

You can build an epic list that lists every minute detail that was change from MW to MW2. But that still won't change the fact that the game plays and controls exactly the same. That is more then enough to make it a similar or familiar experience to the first.

I never said it's not similar or familiar, I said it's different and not just "refined" as you claimed, which being similar or familiar doesn't confront. And lol @ calling levels, which make up the game you play, and which without you have no game, minute details. I don't want what you're smoking.
#111 Posted by PeasForFees (2411 posts) -
@Al3xand3r said:
" @carlthenimrod said:
Oh please, FPS controls are not gimped on 360/PS3
Yes they are. "
Therefore the Wii's controls are........ Please fill in the gap
#112 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -
@PeasForFees said:

" @Al3xand3r said:

" @carlthenimrod said:

Oh please, FPS controls are not gimped on 360/PS3

Yes they are. "
Therefore the Wii's controls are........ Please fill in the gap "
Also gimped (though less so where it matters the most, that is aiming, honestly). The point of that discussion wasn't to claim it controls better on Wii, just to show that games are judged based by the platform's capabilities since FPS games on consoles aren't usually downscored for their lesser controls, visuals or other inferior elements. Most outlets pretend that is the standard with PC versions rarely receiving higher marks unless something goes seriously wrong rendering the console versions actually bad as in Dragon Age's case described above. Hell in MW2's case we have outlets scoring the PC version worse since by PC standards it's just not as good as it should be, even though it's still better than on consoles, yet people here pretend the platform doesn't matter in scoring, lol.
#113 Posted by PeasForFees (2411 posts) -
@Al3xand3r said:
" @PeasForFees said:

" @Al3xand3r said:

" @carlthenimrod said:

Oh please, FPS controls are not gimped on 360/PS3
Yes they are. "
Therefore the Wii's controls are........ Please fill in the gap "
Also gimped (though less so where it matters the most, that is aiming, honestly). The point of that discussion wasn't to prove where it controls best, just to show that games are judged based on the given platform's capabilities since FPS games on consoles aren't downscored for lesser controls. "
This all depends on usage, you play a lot of Wii games, so therefore you are more inclined to say that they are better due to your increased experience with them, However a "Gamepad" console gamer would think the otherwise, due to his time spent with the controller. And yes, saying that gamepad controls are better than a decent (In which I mean value over £2) mouse, is like saying Hitler was not a Nazi, but then again it falls under the Experience and what you are used to.
#114 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -

Agreed with all that, I didn't try to dispute any of it. But as you say, it's a fact they're inferior to PC controls, yet the majority of reviews currently don't reflect that (or the other inferior elements), showing that games are, to an extent, rated based on the given platform's standards, even if they happen to be standards shared by more than one platform (like PS360), and that's all I was trying to say in that part of the discussion. Of course it's one thing to say I prefer this because I'm more used to it and another to pretend you're a critic that rates things according to their actual worth and proceed to rate games that use control schemes you're incapable and unwilling of getting used to because you couldn't care less. That also shouldn't occur. But all this is really off topic...

#115 Posted by carlthenimrod (1594 posts) -
@Al3xand3r said:
" I never said it's not similar or familiar, I said it's different and not just "refined" as you claimed, which being similar or familiar doesn't confront. And lol @ calling levels, which make up the game you play, and which without you have no game, minute details. I don't want what you're smoking. "
Different is an antonym for similar. It can't be both dood.
#116 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -

 @carlthenimrod said:

"Different is an antonym for similar. It can't be both dood. "

Yes it can. We are both humans. Men. We're similar. In some ways, like our DNA, almost identical (99.9% according to older research, possibly less than 88% according to newer developments in the field - hm, I guess this means we can no longer claim 99% similarity to chimps - I wonder if we could get tested to see which of us is genetically closer to a chimp then - then again chimps will also have varying DNA and therefor one may pose more or less similarities to one or another human - bah, science proves useless once again!). Yet we're certainly different. We're of a different age, have different hobbies, skills, likes and dislikes, as well as a different IQ, to name a few of the vast amount of ways we're different. One can like me yet hate you and vice versa. Being similar doesn't make us identical, so that shows we're also different despite that being an antonym of similar. If anything this shows the deficiencies in the English language, or in the way some people comprehend it, I'm not sure. I guess it's a lot like the same glass being half full and half empty at the same time, yet unable to be full and empty at the same time. What do you think, dood?
#117 Posted by carlthenimrod (1594 posts) -
@Al3xand3r said:

"  @carlthenimrod said:

"Different is an antonym for similar. It can't be both dood. "

Yes it can. We are both humans. Men. We're similar. Hell, in some ways, say our DNA for example, we could be just about identical (99.9% according to older research, possibly less than 88% according to newer developments in the field). Yet we're certainly different. We're of a different age, have different hobbies, skills, likes and dislikes, as well as a different IQ, to name a few of the vast amount of ways we're different. One can like me yet hate you and vice versa. Being similar doesn't make us identical, so that shows we're also different despite that being an antonym of similar. If anything this shows the deficiencies in the English language, or in the way some people comprehend it, I'm not sure. What do you think, dood? "
That just means we're similar. As you pointed out, similar doesn't make us identical. MW2 is a similar experience to the first MW even though certain aspects of it are different, like the story and what not. As a whole, the experience in MW2 is extremely similar to the first MW.  It's not both similar and different. That doesn't make any sense. They are the opposite.
#118 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -

You seem to start with the right train of thought then you ruin it. We're similar. Similar isn't identical. That means there are differences as I mentioned. Those make us different. We're different and similar at the same time, despite the words being antonyms. The same goes for MW and MW2. The very usage of the word similar indicates it's also different since similar isn't identical therefor there are differences. Still, I'm not really sure where you're going with this, it doesn't seem to reinforce a statement of yours or bring down one of mine. You missed my awesome edit too...

#119 Posted by animateria (3252 posts) -

It's a re-release of a fairly old game.
 
If you compare all the different versions of this game, this obviously isn't the version to buy.
 
It also doesn't help that MW2 came out with improvements over the first game that make this release dated in comparison.
 
AND it should be noted that most people who buy games DON'T fiddle with the controls too much, any game that doesn't have good controls out of the box should get criticized. 
 
For people who say this is more precise than traditional console controls, you can't really compare them unless you can play against a mixed group of traditional and wiimote options.
 
Either way, getting too nit-picky over some review score is just silly.

#120 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -

Did you read the OP? I don't see you responding to much of it. People have a beef not so much with the score, but the fact the review text doesn't explain the given score. It's not a "brah, Wii low score, unfair!" thread, it's a "lol @ this reviewer" thread even though most tro... people, rushed to say it's the former or that the review is justified. Coming in and giving different justifications for the score does no good since those justifications were not given by the reviewer and this is all that was criticised here, at least at first, before the discussion was derailed. Hell I think I mentioned myself that some reviews actually didn't mention things that are wrong with the port, showing they emphasised the wrong aspects of it or that they didn't experience enough of it to properly review it. Also, nobody argued that if one can experience MW on another platform he should buy it on Wii (if he doesn't enjoy the pointer controls enough to make them more important than the other minor shortcomings), or that this isn't a port of an older title, which has been stated many times. Of course I wouldn't recommend the PS360 version to anyone if he could buy it on PC either but those versions didn't score less. The sequel is also irrelevant as it's a different game, not an upgrade of this game. It's not merely better, it's different. A different campaign, different maps. The only thing that could be said is really better is a minor part of the game, that is the visuals. The rest is up to preference. People don't necessarily buy it because it's better than Modern Warfare, they buy it because it's advertised more now or because they've already played Modern Warfare to death (and the port is obviously not aimed at those who have done so, but it's not a review's job to tell me if I've already played a game or not, it's their job to evaluate this game). As for controls, no, you don't need to play mixed groups, you can just become well versed in all schemes so that they're all comfortable enough to you and then you can easily tell which is the best scheme, even if it's the one you're least good with, either because of the other players being better at it or because you aren't as proficient with it as with the others. I perform the worst on PC for example, mainly due to the better competition, but still, I can easily tell that's the best. Being better at something doesn't make it better.

#121 Posted by Meowayne (6084 posts) -
@Milkman said:
Oh the irony. You're one of the main causes for any "system wars" on these forums. If you didn't feel need to be part of the "Wii defense force" every time someone says something bad about the Wii on the internet, then this arguement would have never happened. "
The defenders are those responsible for a war? Hmm, Milkman, maybe you should think that allegory through more thoroughly next time. 
 
But yes, as long as there are people frequenting Wii threads out of pure spite defacating one liners whose single purpose is trolling and whose single origin is ignorance, they will get provocant question from the Squad. 
There is a lot of room for criticism and I myself have lots of things to complain about with Nintendo's current system. Do you disagree that 9 out of 10 negative comments about the Wii come from people who are not even remotely familiar with it's games?
#122 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -

6 out 10 means above average.  
stop being a big wii-fanbaby

#123 Posted by HandsomeDead (11863 posts) -
@Meowayne said:
" @Milkman said:
Oh the irony. You're one of the main causes for any "system wars" on these forums. If you didn't feel need to be part of the "Wii defense force" every time someone says something bad about the Wii on the internet, then this arguement would have never happened. "
The defenders are those responsible for a war? Hmm, Milkman, maybe you should think that allegory through more thoroughly next time."
True, you really did need to point out where Eurogamer was wrong on that website, just to set us straight.
#124 Posted by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

The OP does not contain any system wars at all, HandsomeDead, and I was not advertising the console, but complaining about bad gaming journalism. You may read my own miniature review of Reflex again, its on the page before this.
 
Anyway, I will put this here for good measure. They are more favourable of the game than I am and make the game look better than it does, but at least they're more competent in their reasoning.
 

#125 Posted by HandsomeDead (11863 posts) -

Do you ever complain about bad gaming journalism when it doesn't directly involve the Wii?

#126 Edited by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

Yes, frequently. In fact, the "does it again" refers to Eurogamer in general, who are notorious for publishing weird or controversial reviews; they are generally favourable of the Wii games I like(!). I usually engage in gaming journalism threads, and I usually promote the abandonement of rating scales as they encourage  not reading the actual review and does not take different creeds of gamers into account. 
 
A handful of hyped Wii titles failed pretty hard on the critics, but do you see me making threads about how The Conduit is the second coming of christ and how unfair giving The Darkside Chronicles a 4/10 is? I don't, because I recognize a bad game when I see one and I accept an opinion that goes aginst mine if it is well founded and / or argumented for.
 
On top of that, I frequently state that I regard this generation of consoles as all-around excellent, and that all systems (PS3, X360, PC, Wii, DS, PSP) have more high quality titles than any respective owner of these, lest alone multiplatform users could ever hope to finish. 
 
All of this combined with the fact that I am primarily a 360 player and Al3x, for example, is primarily a PC player make that notion of "Wii fanboys" exceptionally ridiculous.  We are just persistently arguing against a very popular and very unfounded opinion.

#127 Posted by nail1080 (1975 posts) -
@Meowayne said:
We are just persistently arguing against a very popular and very unfounded opinion. "
'Unfounded'? Wait what? How about this for unfounded. The gamecube was awesome, it had great games, a great controller (that you don't have to waggle around in front of a sensor), and great graphics (at the time). N64? Also awesome. SNES? Oh hell yeah pure awesome, NES also awesome. Then the Wii comes along, Nintendo realise they're onto something that they can sell to non gamers (and there are alot more non-gamers out there than us) and they make a console with shit games, a terrible awkward controller, and terrible graphics (for the time, it is 2009 HELLO?) . It's all gimmick gimmick and more gimmicks. 3rd party support is terrible compared to the 360 and PS3.
 
So yeah people have a reason to be pissed and the same people have the right to lol at you guys for giving out about a 6/10 score for a terrible port of a 2 year old game, which everyone has already played on a better system! Clearly you are die hard Wii fanobys and anyone who doens't agree with you you call a troll or dance around calling the person a troll...
#128 Edited by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

Thanks for proving my point without having read my post, nail.

#129 Posted by Rallier (1739 posts) -
@Meowayne said:
" how unfair giving The Darkside Chronicles a 4/10 is? "
I had to look this up on metacritic to believe it, my that review is messed up. Oh well at least they wrote about how the game actually was (in an extreme negative fashion) unlike this Kombo review.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.