This got a 10/10 on gamespot.

  • 0 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by AlwaysAngry (2924 posts) -
Review. 
 
To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked.
#2 Edited by Mikemcn (6997 posts) -

Someone already posted this =( But yea, Galaxy was alot of fun, i just wished I'd finished it.
#3 Posted by kishan6 (1914 posts) -

Mario is a pretty cool game 
however after 20 years of playing mario 
the core gameplay experience hasnt really changed 
they have added some variety but mario is mario 
besides i havent trusted gamespot since 08

#4 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -
@AlwaysAngry said:
" Review.  To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked. "
When did the presence of online features or the length of the game start playing such an important role in determining how good a game is?
#5 Posted by Zero_ (1976 posts) -

Super Mario Galaxy 2 has NOTHING on Tony Hawk Pro Skating 3

#6 Posted by Jadeskye (4367 posts) -
@Zero_ said:
" Super Mario Galaxy 2 has NOTHING on Tony Hawk Pro Skating 3 "
This. 
 

#7 Posted by Supermarius (1196 posts) -
@kishan6 said:
" Mario is a pretty cool game however after 20 years of playing mario the core gameplay experience hasnt really changed they have added some variety but mario is mario besides i havent trusted gamespot since 08 "
I don't know if this is a valid critique. Look at the most popular genre of this generation: First-Person Shooters. The core gameplay mechanic of "shoot man in face" has not really changed but people still like them. IF anything, i think platformers have probably changed more than most other genres.
#8 Posted by HandsomeDead (11863 posts) -
@Supermarius said:
" @kishan6 said:
" Mario is a pretty cool game however after 20 years of playing mario the core gameplay experience hasnt really changed they have added some variety but mario is mario besides i havent trusted gamespot since 08 "
I don't know if this is a valid critique. Look at the most popular genre of this generation: First-Person Shooters. The core gameplay mechanic of "shoot man in face" has not really changed but people still like them. IF anything, i think platformers have probably changed more than most other genres. "
But that's one, maybe two, generations en masse. There's usually one of these games per generation and it's made into a big deal. I'm not sure I agree as I haven't played SMG2 but I see where he's coming from when you apply that idea to Zelda which has been near enough the same game since the NES.
#9 Posted by AlwaysAngry (2924 posts) -
@Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" Review.  To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked. "
When did the presence of online features or the length of the game start playing such an important role in determining how good a game is? "
If you can beat a in 5 hours instead of 50, it's a huge difference. The longer the better, unless it's a bad game. Online modes offer lots of re-playability and give you more bang for your buck.
#10 Posted by kishan6 (1914 posts) -
@Supermarius said:
" @kishan6 said:
" Mario is a pretty cool game however after 20 years of playing mario the core gameplay experience hasnt really changed they have added some variety but mario is mario besides i havent trusted gamespot since 08 "
I don't know if this is a valid critique. Look at the most popular genre of this generation: First-Person Shooters. The core gameplay mechanic of "shoot man in face" has not really changed but people still like them. IF anything, i think platformers have probably changed more than most other genres. "
Maybe its the fact that i dont play as many shooters as i used to 
but i think that the core mechanics of many shooters have much more depth than that of "jump on guy" 
and its also possible that the similarness of mario and its graphics over the years  
is just too much to handle 
i can only stomp on so many koopa troopers dude
#11 Posted by Supermarius (1196 posts) -
@HandsomeDead said:
" @Supermarius said:
" @kishan6 said:
" Mario is a pretty cool game however after 20 years of playing mario the core gameplay experience hasnt really changed they have added some variety but mario is mario besides i havent trusted gamespot since 08 "
I don't know if this is a valid critique. Look at the most popular genre of this generation: First-Person Shooters. The core gameplay mechanic of "shoot man in face" has not really changed but people still like them. IF anything, i think platformers have probably changed more than most other genres. "
But that's one, maybe two, generations en masse. There's usually one of these games per generation and it's made into a big deal. I'm not sure I agree as I haven't played SMG2 but I see where he's coming from when you apply that idea to Zelda which has been near enough the same game since the NES. "
its not the case that there is usually only one of these games per generation. In the 8 bit era there were 3 or 4 mario games and 2 zelda games, in the 16 bit era there were 2 mario core games, maybe 3 if you count allstars. If you start counting at the 64 bit era then it seems like a pattern but i t hink that the slower rate of game production is more a factor of the increasing time and resources required to make a good genre game versus the length of the average modern console cycle. They would have made more games if they could have. This generation is running long because of the global recession, so we are getting multiple entries.
#12 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -
@AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" Review.  To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked. "
When did the presence of online features or the length of the game start playing such an important role in determining how good a game is? "
If you can beat a in 5 hours instead of 50, it's a huge difference. The longer the better, unless it's a bad game. Online modes offer lots of re-playability and give you more bang for your buck. "
It takes four hours to beat Portal (possible less), and that's one of the most unique, inventive, entertaining games to come along in years.  Length of a game has nothing to do with quality.  If game length were a criteria, MMORPGs break the scale, because those games aren't meant to end.  EverQuest 1 is still going.
#13 Posted by HandsomeDead (11863 posts) -
@Supermarius said:
" @HandsomeDead said:
" @Supermarius said:
" @kishan6 said:
" Mario is a pretty cool game however after 20 years of playing mario the core gameplay experience hasnt really changed they have added some variety but mario is mario besides i havent trusted gamespot since 08 "
I don't know if this is a valid critique. Look at the most popular genre of this generation: First-Person Shooters. The core gameplay mechanic of "shoot man in face" has not really changed but people still like them. IF anything, i think platformers have probably changed more than most other genres. "
But that's one, maybe two, generations en masse. There's usually one of these games per generation and it's made into a big deal. I'm not sure I agree as I haven't played SMG2 but I see where he's coming from when you apply that idea to Zelda which has been near enough the same game since the NES. "
its not the case that there is usually only one of these games per generation. In the 8 bit era there were 3 or 4 mario games and 2 zelda games, in the 16 bit era there were 2 mario core games, maybe 3 if you count allstars. If you start counting at the 64 bit era then it seems like a pattern but i t hink that the slower rate of game production is more a factor of the increasing time and resources required to make a good genre game versus the length of the average modern console cycle. They would have made more games if they could have. This generation is running long because of the global recession, so we are getting multiple entries. "
OK, maybe not generation bt if you look at it in terms of years, this is the 4th Mario game in 14 years and I can't see how it takes them so long to make a game when you have Infinity Ward making MW2 in two years, a game which I would bet my life involves more effort, in all forms, than SMG2. Considering how Nintendo work, churning out Wii series games, I can see where you're coming from but that doesn't really excuse the GameCube or the N64.
#14 Posted by AlwaysAngry (2924 posts) -
@Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" Review.  To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked. "
When did the presence of online features or the length of the game start playing such an important role in determining how good a game is? "
If you can beat a in 5 hours instead of 50, it's a huge difference. The longer the better, unless it's a bad game. Online modes offer lots of re-playability and give you more bang for your buck. "
It takes four hours to beat Portal (possible less) "
Which is EXACTLY why I still haven't bought Portal yet.
#15 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -
@AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" Review.  To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked. "
When did the presence of online features or the length of the game start playing such an important role in determining how good a game is? "
If you can beat a in 5 hours instead of 50, it's a huge difference. The longer the better, unless it's a bad game. Online modes offer lots of re-playability and give you more bang for your buck. "
It takes four hours to beat Portal (possible less) "
Which is EXACTLY why I still haven't bought Portal yet. "
Then you're missing out, but since you seem adamant about ignoring my argument, I guess there isn't much else for me to say to you.
#16 Posted by Termite (2398 posts) -

I've heard that the game has a substantial amount of content as long as you play past the requisite number of stars. As long as there's a lot of unique stuff in it, which there apparently is, online capabilities and such shouldn't matter.

#17 Posted by Supermarius (1196 posts) -
@AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" Review.  To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked. "
When did the presence of online features or the length of the game start playing such an important role in determining how good a game is? "
If you can beat a in 5 hours instead of 50, it's a huge difference. The longer the better, unless it's a bad game. Online modes offer lots of re-playability and give you more bang for your buck. "
It takes four hours to beat Portal (possible less) "
Which is EXACTLY why I still haven't bought Portal yet. "
isnt portal free on steam now, or was earlier this week?
#18 Posted by AlwaysAngry (2924 posts) -
@Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" Review.  To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked. "
When did the presence of online features or the length of the game start playing such an important role in determining how good a game is? "
If you can beat a in 5 hours instead of 50, it's a huge difference. The longer the better, unless it's a bad game. Online modes offer lots of re-playability and give you more bang for your buck. "
It takes four hours to beat Portal (possible less) "
Which is EXACTLY why I still haven't bought Portal yet. "
Then you're missing out, but since you seem adamant about ignoring my argument, I guess there isn't much else for me to say to you. "
A game can be good even if it's short, like Portal. 
 
I really don't know what to say to your argument, it's just stupid. If I make a game that's 3 minutes long, but it's an awesome 3 minutes, does it make it a good game? Fuck no. Lasting apparel is a huge part to making a game good. 
 
What if Fallout 3 was only 4 hours long? The insane length of the campaign was what made Fallout 3 special. You could play it for a while and not get bored. It made the game last longer than most other game.
#19 Posted by AlwaysAngry (2924 posts) -
@Supermarius said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" Review.  To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked. "
When did the presence of online features or the length of the game start playing such an important role in determining how good a game is? "
If you can beat a in 5 hours instead of 50, it's a huge difference. The longer the better, unless it's a bad game. Online modes offer lots of re-playability and give you more bang for your buck. "
It takes four hours to beat Portal (possible less) "
Which is EXACTLY why I still haven't bought Portal yet. "
isnt portal free on steam now, or was earlier this week? "
Doesn't mean my computer can run it...even if I'm well past the minimum settings. It lags whenever there's two portal open :/
#20 Posted by Walreese55 (508 posts) -

I don't get it. The reviewer admits that the story takes a backseat, a flaw in every mario game and galaxy 1. How do you make a perfect game without a good story?

Online
#21 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -
@AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" Review.  To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked. "
When did the presence of online features or the length of the game start playing such an important role in determining how good a game is? "
If you can beat a in 5 hours instead of 50, it's a huge difference. The longer the better, unless it's a bad game. Online modes offer lots of re-playability and give you more bang for your buck. "
It takes four hours to beat Portal (possible less) "
Which is EXACTLY why I still haven't bought Portal yet. "
Then you're missing out, but since you seem adamant about ignoring my argument, I guess there isn't much else for me to say to you. "
A game can be good even if it's short, like Portal.  I really don't know what to say to your argument, it's just stupid. If I make a game that's 3 minutes long, but it's an awesome 3 minutes, does it make it a good game? Fuck no. Lasting apparel is a huge part to making a game good.  What if Fallout 3 was only 4 hours long? The insane length of the campaign was what made Fallout 3 special. You could play it for a while and not get bored. It made the game last longer than most other game. "
If a game is fun, it's fun, and fun games are generally considered good.  Whether that fun lasts three minutes or 100 hours doesn't matter.  The only way I could really see it matter is the cost to content.  A three minute game I wouldn't pay for.  If it was a free download, I'd probably give it a shot.  A hundred hour game?  If the game is good, spending $50-$60 isn't a bad monetary investment, in my mind.  It doesn't mean that the three minute game isn't good, however, because different games aspire to different goals.  If that goal is a graphic adventure parody about doing everything in my power to not shit my pants, and its damn good fun, I'm not going to turn around and say it's a bad game, even if it takes all of a few minutes to earn everything the game has to offer.
#22 Posted by JoelTGM (5596 posts) -
@brainboy77 said:
" I don't get it. The reviewer admits that the story takes a backseat, a flaw in every mario game and galaxy 1. How do you make a perfect game without a good story? "
You only need stories for story driven games.  Games that focus on gameplay don't need a story. 
#23 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -
@brainboy77 said:
" I don't get it. The reviewer admits that the story takes a backseat, a flaw in every mario game and galaxy 1. How do you make a perfect game without a good story? "
Dude, it's a Mario game.
 
Did Bowser kidnap Peach?  Yes?  Well, there you go.  There's all the story required.
#24 Posted by AlwaysAngry (2924 posts) -
@Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" Review.  To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked. "
When did the presence of online features or the length of the game start playing such an important role in determining how good a game is? "
If you can beat a in 5 hours instead of 50, it's a huge difference. The longer the better, unless it's a bad game. Online modes offer lots of re-playability and give you more bang for your buck. "
It takes four hours to beat Portal (possible less) "
Which is EXACTLY why I still haven't bought Portal yet. "
Then you're missing out, but since you seem adamant about ignoring my argument, I guess there isn't much else for me to say to you. "
A game can be good even if it's short, like Portal.  I really don't know what to say to your argument, it's just stupid. If I make a game that's 3 minutes long, but it's an awesome 3 minutes, does it make it a good game? Fuck no. Lasting apparel is a huge part to making a game good.  What if Fallout 3 was only 4 hours long? The insane length of the campaign was what made Fallout 3 special. You could play it for a while and not get bored. It made the game last longer than most other game. "
If a game is fun, it's fun, and fun games are generally considered good.  Whether that fun lasts three minutes or 100 hours doesn't matter.  The only way I could really see it matter is the cost to content.  A three minute game I wouldn't pay for.  If it was a free download, I'd probably give it a shot.  A hundred hour game?  If the game is good, spending $50-$60 isn't a bad monetary investment, in my mind.  It doesn't mean that the three minute game isn't good, however, because different games aspire to different goals.  If that goal is a graphic adventure parody about doing everything in my power to not shit my pants, and its damn good fun, I'm not going to turn around and say it's a bad game, even if it takes all of a few minutes to earn everything the game has to offer. "
I probably should have included price in my argument, but I thought it was implied. It may not be a bad game, but worth $60.00? Ehhhhh... 
 
Assassin's Creed II was a 10/10 for me, but that doesn't mean I feel justified spending $60.00 on it...which my dumb-ass did.
#25 Posted by AlwaysAngry (2924 posts) -
@Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" Review.  To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked. "
When did the presence of online features or the length of the game start playing such an important role in determining how good a game is? "
If you can beat a in 5 hours instead of 50, it's a huge difference. The longer the better, unless it's a bad game. Online modes offer lots of re-playability and give you more bang for your buck. "
It takes four hours to beat Portal (possible less) "
Which is EXACTLY why I still haven't bought Portal yet. "
Then you're missing out, but since you seem adamant about ignoring my argument, I guess there isn't much else for me to say to you. "
A game can be good even if it's short, like Portal.  I really don't know what to say to your argument, it's just stupid. If I make a game that's 3 minutes long, but it's an awesome 3 minutes, does it make it a good game? Fuck no. Lasting apparel is a huge part to making a game good.  What if Fallout 3 was only 4 hours long? The insane length of the campaign was what made Fallout 3 special. You could play it for a while and not get bored. It made the game last longer than most other game. "
If a game is fun, it's fun, and fun games are generally considered good.  Whether that fun lasts three minutes or 100 hours doesn't matter.  The only way I could really see it matter is the cost to content.  A three minute game I wouldn't pay for.  If it was a free download, I'd probably give it a shot.  A hundred hour game?  If the game is good, spending $50-$60 isn't a bad monetary investment, in my mind.  It doesn't mean that the three minute game isn't good, however, because different games aspire to different goals.  If that goal is a graphic adventure parody about doing everything in my power to not shit my pants, and its damn good fun, I'm not going to turn around and say it's a bad game, even if it takes all of a few minutes to earn everything the game has to offer. "
I probably should have included price in my argument, but I thought it was implied. Assassin's Creed II was a 10/10 in my book, but does that mean I feel justified spending 10/10 on it? Ehhhh...not really...but my dumb-ass still did it.
#26 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -
@brainboy77 said:
" I don't get it. The reviewer admits that the story takes a backseat, a flaw in every mario game and galaxy 1. How do you make a perfect game without a good story? "
Dude, it's a Mario game.
 
Did Bowser kidnap Peach?  Yes?  Well there you go!  That's all the story it needs.
#27 Posted by Shady (503 posts) -

If price is really the cusp of your argument, then you really should just wait to buy all your games.

#28 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -
@AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" Review.  To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked. "
When did the presence of online features or the length of the game start playing such an important role in determining how good a game is? "
If you can beat a in 5 hours instead of 50, it's a huge difference. The longer the better, unless it's a bad game. Online modes offer lots of re-playability and give you more bang for your buck. "
It takes four hours to beat Portal (possible less) "
Which is EXACTLY why I still haven't bought Portal yet. "
Then you're missing out, but since you seem adamant about ignoring my argument, I guess there isn't much else for me to say to you. "
A game can be good even if it's short, like Portal.  I really don't know what to say to your argument, it's just stupid. If I make a game that's 3 minutes long, but it's an awesome 3 minutes, does it make it a good game? Fuck no. Lasting apparel is a huge part to making a game good.  What if Fallout 3 was only 4 hours long? The insane length of the campaign was what made Fallout 3 special. You could play it for a while and not get bored. It made the game last longer than most other game. "
If a game is fun, it's fun, and fun games are generally considered good.  Whether that fun lasts three minutes or 100 hours doesn't matter.  The only way I could really see it matter is the cost to content.  A three minute game I wouldn't pay for.  If it was a free download, I'd probably give it a shot.  A hundred hour game?  If the game is good, spending $50-$60 isn't a bad monetary investment, in my mind.  It doesn't mean that the three minute game isn't good, however, because different games aspire to different goals.  If that goal is a graphic adventure parody about doing everything in my power to not shit my pants, and its damn good fun, I'm not going to turn around and say it's a bad game, even if it takes all of a few minutes to earn everything the game has to offer. "
I probably should have included price in my argument, but I thought it was implied. Assassin's Creed II was a 10/10 in my book, but does that mean I feel justified spending 10/10 on it? Ehhhh...not really...but my dumb-ass still did it. "
Spending 10/10?  Your analogy makes no sense.
#29 Posted by AlwaysAngry (2924 posts) -
@Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said:
" @AlwaysAngry said:
" Review.  To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked. "
When did the presence of online features or the length of the game start playing such an important role in determining how good a game is? "
If you can beat a in 5 hours instead of 50, it's a huge difference. The longer the better, unless it's a bad game. Online modes offer lots of re-playability and give you more bang for your buck. "
It takes four hours to beat Portal (possible less) "
Which is EXACTLY why I still haven't bought Portal yet. "
Then you're missing out, but since you seem adamant about ignoring my argument, I guess there isn't much else for me to say to you. "
A game can be good even if it's short, like Portal.  I really don't know what to say to your argument, it's just stupid. If I make a game that's 3 minutes long, but it's an awesome 3 minutes, does it make it a good game? Fuck no. Lasting apparel is a huge part to making a game good.  What if Fallout 3 was only 4 hours long? The insane length of the campaign was what made Fallout 3 special. You could play it for a while and not get bored. It made the game last longer than most other game. "
If a game is fun, it's fun, and fun games are generally considered good.  Whether that fun lasts three minutes or 100 hours doesn't matter.  The only way I could really see it matter is the cost to content.  A three minute game I wouldn't pay for.  If it was a free download, I'd probably give it a shot.  A hundred hour game?  If the game is good, spending $50-$60 isn't a bad monetary investment, in my mind.  It doesn't mean that the three minute game isn't good, however, because different games aspire to different goals.  If that goal is a graphic adventure parody about doing everything in my power to not shit my pants, and its damn good fun, I'm not going to turn around and say it's a bad game, even if it takes all of a few minutes to earn everything the game has to offer. "
I probably should have included price in my argument, but I thought it was implied. Assassin's Creed II was a 10/10 in my book, but does that mean I feel justified spending 10/10 on it? Ehhhh...not really...but my dumb-ass still did it. "
Spending 10/10?  Your analogy makes no sense. "
What? Well fuck me in the ass. I meant to say $60.00.
#30 Edited by ryanwho (12082 posts) -
@brainboy77 said:

" I don't get it. The reviewer admits that the story takes a backseat, a flaw in every mario game and galaxy 1. How do you make a perfect game without a good story? "

Is this a serious question? Modern gamers are fucking baffling. I don't even want to know what you consider a good game story but if it involves someone's arm taking control of another person's mind, your definition of 'good' is warped to hell.
#31 Edited by bybeach (4899 posts) -

To the op,mabe cause the game was being regarded on it's own merits, and not what appeals to you. To compare it to RDR is what really throws me. Why do that? RDR is an entirely different genre. You want to go that route, start comparing red dead redemtion to other games like A Boy and his Blob. 
 
From what I hear, RDR has some reported serious teething problems, though I am anxious to start it. Right now I am playing Alan Wake, and to me that is a better game I would think than galaxy 2. But I have not a quarrel with the numerical ratings. And Mario Galaxy 2 will be going to my nephew.

#32 Posted by Zero_ (1976 posts) -
@Hailinel: Yeah it does - he just means it's an awesome game but he's not sure whether the price was justified. 
 
For example, I think as a game, PixelJunk Shooter is great. It has some great design choices and it just oozes with personality and is great fun to play. But factoring in it's cost:length ratio, the level of enjoyment out of this game takes a hit.  
 
AfterBurner Climax is another great recent example. That game is hella fun, but if you read most reviews out there, the cost:length ratio becomes an issue. The game is like what, $10 USD? The game only lasts for about 15-20 minutes start to finish; it's a great ride but it's short and you got only what, 1/70 of a 'normal' game's length for 1/6 of a 'normal' game's cost. 
 
But it's all relative and all subjective I suppose...
#33 Posted by ryanwho (12082 posts) -

Galaxy has a volume proposition that should attract cheap jobless modern gamers.  You're getting like 4 stars per dollar.

#34 Posted by AlwaysAngry (2924 posts) -
@bybeach said:
" To the op,mabe cause the game was being regarded on it's own merits, and not what appeals to you. To compare it to RDR is what really throws me. Why do that? RDR is an entirely different genre. You want to go that route, start comparing red dead redemtion to other games like A Boy and his Blob. 
 
From what I hear, RDR has some reported serious teething problems, though I am anxious to start it. Right now I am playing Alan Wake, and to me that is a better game I would think than galaxy 2. But I have not a quarrel with the numerical ratings. And Mario Galaxy 2 will be going to my nephew. "
I was actually going to compare to Alan Wake too. 
 
What if Alan Wake was 5 hours long? It wouldn't be as good. Case close. Argue all you want, but it's late and I'm going to bed.
#35 Posted by AlwaysAngry (2924 posts) -
@Zero_: THANK YOU! 
 
 
Goodnight.
#36 Posted by ryanwho (12082 posts) -
@AlwaysAngry: If you could get to the first ending in Alan Wak in 5 hours and still have 3/4 of the game left to go through, it would be a good deal. Your logic is fucking stupid, sleep it off.
#37 Posted by Walreese55 (508 posts) -
@ryanwho: GTA 4. One of the greatest stories in a modern game. 
Online
#38 Posted by ryanwho (12082 posts) -

But how fun is the actual game? How much fun do you have racing and in the shootouts? I would rather play a good game than stomach a large volume of mediocre tasks for a 'good' story.

#39 Posted by Zero_ (1976 posts) -
@AlwaysAngry: Heh, no problems. 
 
Though, I still think you're insane for not having played Portal despite it's length :P
#40 Posted by Brodehouse (10079 posts) -

I don't think they should review Mario games anymore.  There's no point.  It's going to get a perfect or near-perfect score, and the review is going to say that it plays just like Mario.  The only time it's even worth reviewing is if it's a dramatic shift in quality like Super Mario Sunshine.   That is the only time in which a review is useful.  Do you find reviews to guide your opinion on any Mario title?  Or that your decision to purchase or not purchase is really going to be affected by a review being an 8, a 9 or a 10?
 
A main series Mario review should read: It is Mario.  If you like Mario, get this game, because it is Mario.  If you don't like Mario, maybe not.

#41 Posted by AlwaysAngry (2924 posts) -
@ryanwho: I said beat the game, you said first ending. 
 
I mean, beat the entire game, start to finish, all five chapter. Not just the first ending.
#42 Posted by Brodehouse (10079 posts) -

Also, do great games need great stories?  I was never impressed by the narrative of Solitaire, and yet that game is incredible.

#43 Edited by ryanwho (12082 posts) -
@AlwaysAngry: And gamespot and oher outlets say it takes a few hours to get to the first ending. So your correlation is stupid. If it takes 5 hours to get 70 stars for the first ending, (which is what people are talking about when they say "beat the game" and it should be obvious) that's a little over 1/4 of the total game. If you honestly thought it took 5 hours to get all 250 stars and 'beat the game', that would mean you're getting one star every 1 minute 20 seconds.
#44 Posted by griefersstolemykeyboard (359 posts) -

Am I the only guy who thinks the video review of this sounds like a dude reading of page he just got handed randomly. Sounds like me when I had to do book reports in school or something.

Also Mario Galaxy is pretty sweet, pure gameplay, in the end that is all that matters.

#45 Posted by yakov456 (1917 posts) -

I have nothing against Mario, but after years and years of playing this game I have simply grown out of it. Surely it deserves the score, but this game is totally off my radar, zzzzzzzzz.

#46 Edited by dangerousdave (136 posts) -

Every post in this thread is mentally retarded.  Half of you guys think a game has to follow some sort of checklist where if it doesn't fulfill all of the points it isn't worth playing.  

@brainboy77 said:

" I don't get it. The reviewer admits that the story takes a backseat, a flaw in every mario game and galaxy 1. How do you make a perfect game without a good story? "  

Case in point.  It's like you imagine you break down a game's score by giving it a certain amount of points for graphics, story, gameplay, length, etc.  Since Galaxy doesn't have a story, it theoretically would be impossible to get a perfect 10.  That's mind boggling though!  Brainboy, get the net.  Games can't be compared or rated like that.  Each individual game does it's own thing and you have to evaluate it on what it's trying to do, not what you want it to do.  Same goes for length.  That price:length ratio is bullshit.  Wait until the game comes down in price if you're so worried about the price.  I absolutely loved Modern Warfare 2's single-player campaign, and probably for similar reasons to why I loved Galaxy so much.  They both know when to move onto a new mechanic, which keep the game constantly moving and fun.  I don't care that it's an authentic military simulator, or a decent story, because it's just fun.  I didn't want to play it for any longer than it was anyways.  What about indie games like Passage and Knytt and Every Day the Same Dream?  All short games, but they remain some of my all time favourites.  Do I have to rate them differently than normal games because they're short?  I had more fun with them than many retail games, and the experiences they gave me stuck with me far longer than other games as well. 
 
This whole thread emphasizes the absolute worst things about gamers.  We all seem so critical and bitter, like the games owe us something.  Just chill the fuck out and have fun.  I can't wait until I get Galaxy 2, I'm sure it'll be a blast.  Rent it if you're worried about the price:length thing, god. 
 
EDIT:  This is also another reason why the 10 point system with decimal values is retarded.  Comparing Galaxy 2 to Red Dead Redemption is so useless.  There's no point in that.  They're both 'five star' games, they're both worth your money.
#47 Edited by mutha3 (4986 posts) -
@dangerousdave: 
Totally unrelated:
 
But awww.. your avatar is that of Putt Putt! I have fond memories of playing that game(and pretty much anything humongous did in that time) as a child. One day I wanna go and track down those game to relive my younger, naive days as a cute kid:)...Freddie the Fish was the last one I played, and I was, like, 13 (shut up)  when that came out.
#48 Edited by themangalist (1739 posts) -
@brainboy77 said:

" I don't get it. The reviewer admits that the story takes a backseat, a flaw in every mario game and galaxy 1. How do you make a perfect game without a good story? "

*facepalm* i don't even know how many times i have to explain this like i'm some gamespot fanboy. 10/10 in gamespot is fucking PRIME. not PERFECT. it means it's a must-play. gawd.
 
 for the others arguing about game length, it's like watching a 20 hour movie or a 2 hour movie. A 20 hour lord of the rings would be bloody damn boring. just think about how much filler there was in gta:sa. not that it's the greatest example to throw out there, but man that story dragged on so long i just stopped caring. 
 
at last, a quote from Shakespeare's Hamlet, "brevity is the soul of wit".
#49 Posted by Supermarius (1196 posts) -
@brainboy77 said:
" I don't get it. The reviewer admits that the story takes a backseat, a flaw in every mario game and galaxy 1. How do you make a perfect game without a good story? "
DOOM! 
 
And a 10 is not a perfect game. Its just a game with no significant flaws and represents the best example of the genre it is in.
#50 Posted by Shirogane (3579 posts) -

I tried Super Mario Galaxy 1, but didn't get very far. So this just isn't for me. 
 I can understand people like it, but 3D Mario games just have not worked for me, ever. 
 
NSMBWii is awesome though.

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.