This got a 10/10 on gamespot.

  • 0 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#51 Edited by Willy105 (4690 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? "

The same reason a shooter can be great without having a racing minigame.
 
@griefersstolemykeyboard said:
"

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.

"

All Gamespot reviews are like that. They are like product descriptions.
#52 Posted by Yummylee (21506 posts) -

I already posted up GS' review >=/ but whatever.

#53 Edited by Meowayne (6084 posts) -
@kishan6 said:

"after 20 years of playing mario the core gameplay experience hasnt really changed"

That's bullshit, you know. 
 
Someone make a list of "Things I have never done in a Mario Game / any platformer before" for SMG and SMG2.
#54 Posted by Jimbo (9800 posts) -

Wii games are marked against other Wii games.

#55 Posted by Willy105 (4690 posts) -
@Jimbo said:
" Wii games are marked against other Wii games. "
Didn't stop the first one getting GOTY on the same site.
#56 Posted by Jimbo (9800 posts) -
@Willy105 said:
" @Jimbo said:
" Wii games are marked against other Wii games. "
Didn't stop the first one getting GOTY on the same site. "
Putting it right up there with Demon's Souls.
#57 Posted by Willy105 (4690 posts) -
@Jimbo said:
" @Willy105 said:
" @Jimbo said:
" Wii games are marked against other Wii games. "
Didn't stop the first one getting GOTY on the same site. "
Putting it right up there with Demon's Souls. "

That game wasn't great?
#58 Posted by CrossTheAtlantic (1145 posts) -

What still works about Mario, though, is something that has become increasingly rare this generation: level design. While the core mechanics of Mario has not changed that's because there is no need. What does need to be changed ever iteration, however, is the level in which you play. If I can exaggerate a bit, there really is an art to designing a level. Particularly levels which have no oriented plane on which to build. The first Super Mario Galaxy was a brilliant cacophony of coherent space. It never made sense, but somehow it all came together. Most importantly, it was a blast to run and jump through. 
 
Level design is the crutch of the Mario series. Look at all the failed platforms from the N64 days. It was never really the mascot or the mechanics (many of which were swiped from Mario64 anyways), but the boring levels that made them a chore to burn through. Even Rare, I think, had trouble with creating just a fun, open level which is why they increasingly bloated their games with things to collect. Today, a large number of games consist of running through hallway>shoot enemies with maybe some arenas and cover thrown in to mix it up. It's fun! I like those games! But it's also nice to see a game where the different levels are variably different and just not some window dressing. 
 
Besides, who the hell wants a story in Mario anyways? The last time someone tried to mix a story into Mario we got that movie. NEVER FORGET.

#59 Posted by Tebbit (4460 posts) -
@Willy105 said:
" @Jimbo said:
" @Willy105 said:
" @Jimbo said:
" Wii games are marked against other Wii games. "
Didn't stop the first one getting GOTY on the same site. "
Putting it right up there with Demon's Souls. "
That game wasn't great? "
Imagine all the good points of Demon's Souls, minus the difficulty. = SMG2 
 
Tada! 
 
SMG and SMG2 a the few games on Wii that I think you can say "these games are amazing" rather than "these games are amazing... for the Wii". The graphics, for example, look next-gen enough for me to say damn that looks good.
#60 Posted by Jimbo (9800 posts) -
@Willy105 said:

" @Jimbo said:

" @Willy105 said:
" @Jimbo said:
" Wii games are marked against other Wii games. "
Didn't stop the first one getting GOTY on the same site. "
Putting it right up there with Demon's Souls. "
That game wasn't great? "
Not GOTY great by most accounts, no.  Not even by Gamespot's account if you were to put any stock in their review scores, what with Uncharted 2 scoring higher than Demon's Souls and then somehow losing GOTY to it.  Gamespot seem somewhat inclined to court attention.
 
What does any of this have to do with SMG2 again?  Oh right, Wii games only being marked against other Wii games.  By that I merely meant that SMG2 "getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites" doesn't tell you anything about how these games compare, because games aren't usually scored across platforms like that.  This is true and a fact.  I'm sure SMG2 is a brilliant game.  After all, everywhere is effectively saying "10/10... for a Wii game", and a statement that qualified takes a lot of conviction.
#61 Posted by holybins (156 posts) -
@AlwaysAngry said:
" @Hailinel said: 
It takes four hours to beat Portal (possible less) "
Which is EXACTLY why I still haven't bought Portal yet. "
That is such a ridiculous reason for not getting Portal.  Even more ridiculous - portal has even been free for a week or two now, surely you can get it now! :)
#62 Posted by Willy105 (4690 posts) -
@Jimbo said:
" @Willy105 said:

" @Jimbo said:

" @Willy105 said:
" @Jimbo said:
" Wii games are marked against other Wii games. "
Didn't stop the first one getting GOTY on the same site. "
Putting it right up there with Demon's Souls. "
That game wasn't great? "
Not GOTY great by most accounts, no.  Not even by Gamespot's account if you were to put any stock in their review scores, what with Uncharted 2 scoring higher than Demon's Souls and then somehow losing GOTY to it.  Gamespot seem somewhat inclined to court attention.
 
What does any of this have to do with SMG2 again?  Oh right, Wii games only being marked against other Wii games.  By that I merely meant that SMG2 "getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites" doesn't tell you anything about how these games compare, because games aren't usually scored across platforms like that.  This is true and a fact.  I'm sure SMG2 is a brilliant game.  After all, everywhere is effectively saying "10/10... for a Wii game", and a statement that qualified takes a lot of conviction. "
You know that Gamespot isn't the only site that gave it that score. Standards are different across platforms, but it doesn't mean one has lower standards than the other. The Wii can' t do graphics as good as the HD consoles, so it has to pony up on other areas. If a shooter was being ported from the HD consoles to the Wii, it's obvious graphics will have lower standards, but gameplay will be the opposite. We would expect it to control and play better than the HD consoles, because of the higher standards given by the Wii remote.
 
Same with a Wii game being ported to an HD console. We won't expect better use of motion controls and multiplayer, but we will expect better graphics. Let's see people react to Mario Galaxy having the same loading screens, framerate problems, and pixelated shadows that Red Dead uses. Standards are different, but not better or worse.
#63 Posted by Vinchenzo (6192 posts) -

I will say the following in caps to emphasize my point. 
 
DO YOU REALIZE THAT REVIEW WAS BY TOM MC SHEA? THE WORST REVIEWER EVER!? 
 
I'm not saying Mario is bad. No, it probably deserves a great score, but not a perfect score. Tom Mc Shea is a fucking idiot. Oh, and I skipped through the whole video review to see if they showed Tom's face. Nope, thank God.

#64 Posted by frankfartmouth (1016 posts) -
@kishan6 said:

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 "

I couldn't disagree more. Mario has evolved and adapted quite a bit over the years, I would say more than most shooters. Mario 64 basically set in motion the 3rd person action genre--many of the conventions taken for granted now in 3rd person games started with that one. Super Mario 3 changed the formula quite a bit from its predecessors, as did Super Mario World. It certainly depends on how you're defining "depth." Sure, shooters have deeper menus and more buttons to press. Mario is definitely a simpler control scheme, but that's the beauty of it, that they keep finding ways to make it feel fresh and new (maybe not to you) while keeping it true to its roots and not over-complicating it.  
 
I don't think it's an either/or type thing. I love shooters. I love Mario. They're hard to compare, so I'll take them both, but I definitely don't agree that Mario is stale and that all Marios are the same and haven't innovated as much as shooters. Not true
#65 Posted by Jimbo (9800 posts) -
@Willy105 said:
"You know that Gamespot isn't the only site that gave it that score. Standards are different across platforms, but it doesn't mean one has lower standards than the other. The Wii can' t do graphics as good as the HD consoles, so it has to pony up on other areas. If a shooter was being ported from the HD consoles to the Wii, it's obvious graphics will have lower standards, but gameplay will be the opposite. We would expect it to control and play better than the HD consoles, because of the higher standards given by the Wii remote."
You might.  "We" really wouldn't.
 
I think standards are different and substantially lower on the Wii.  For everything.  Doubly so if you put Mario on the box; that's worth 2 points before you even start.  If these scores continue then SMG2 should be taking GOTY most places pretty comfortably  Cool if it does, but I won't hold my breath.
#66 Posted by AuthenticM (3716 posts) -
@Zero_ said:
" Super Mario Galaxy 2 has NOTHING on Tony Hawk Pro Skating 3 "
And THPS3 has nothing on THPS4.
Online
#67 Posted by Brunchies (2484 posts) -

I'm guessing it got a near perfect score just about everywhere because Mario games usually are some of the best platformers and I'm guessing they compare platformer games to other ones in the genre. Also Mario isn't 5 hours long, its 15 hours or more if it has the same amount of galaxies as SMG.

#68 Edited by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

Jimbo: Care to give a few examples? As a Wii and 360 gamer (which I am sure you are not) my experience is quite different from what you try to sell. Great Wii games are usually downscored and are NOT given critical acclaim, and if they were released on the HD platforms they would get much more attention.  If in general Wii game ratings would adapt to "substantially lower standards", then why are there substantially less 90+ rated games for the Wii on metacritic and the likes?
 
I am not talking about graphics and other technicalities - of course there is always a "... for a Wii game" after those, and rightfully so. But would you please provide evidence for your statement?  That SMG2 would not receive these scores if it was released on a technically similar level on the HD platforms is a very bold claim to make. And you're not only claiming that there is a difference, but a "substantial" one.

#69 Posted by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

Not to mention that we are talking about GAMESPOT here, who are notorious for giving the lowest scores to Wii games. :D

#70 Posted by Fallen189 (4988 posts) -

This is the  worst thread

#71 Posted by Hamz (6846 posts) -

I may not own a Wii but I think the first Super Mario Galaxy was the first Wii game that made me borrow my nephews console for a week as well as his copy of the game just so I could get in on the action. Looks like I'll be doing it again with the second game ;)

#72 Posted by Meowayne (6084 posts) -
@Fallen189 said:
" This is the  worst thread "
Don't you mean "This thread, is the worst thread, ever?"
#73 Posted by Willy105 (4690 posts) -
@Jimbo said:
" @Willy105 said:
"You know that Gamespot isn't the only site that gave it that score. Standards are different across platforms, but it doesn't mean one has lower standards than the other. The Wii can' t do graphics as good as the HD consoles, so it has to pony up on other areas. If a shooter was being ported from the HD consoles to the Wii, it's obvious graphics will have lower standards, but gameplay will be the opposite. We would expect it to control and play better than the HD consoles, because of the higher standards given by the Wii remote."
You might.  "We" really wouldn't.
 
I think standards are different and substantially lower on the Wii.  For everything.  Doubly so if you put Mario on the box; that's worth 2 points before you even start.  If these scores continue then SMG2 should be taking GOTY most places pretty comfortably  Cool if it does, but I won't hold my breath. "

Oh, so you are docking this based on personal views. OK then. 
 
But you will be missing out. The world simply doesn't work like that. Remember that putting Mario on the box doesn't give it points, it takes off, because of higher standards given from the pedigree. The bigger the name, the harshest it's going to be treated, not the other way around.
#74 Posted by Fallen189 (4988 posts) -
@Meowayne said:
" @Fallen189 said:
" This is the  worst thread "
Don't you mean "This thread, is the worst thread, ever?" "
Potentially. But hey, after playing RDR and thinking it was kind of crap, and playing the first 10 stars of Galaxy which was nonstop pleasure centres in my brain exploding. But if I posted that, I'd probably get called up as either an idiot, a fanboy or even worse, a Mario apologist.
 
#75 Posted by Skytylz (4031 posts) -
@Hailinel said:
" @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. "
Fuck dude, spoilers!  The game isn't even out yet!
#76 Posted by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

Ha, but IS IT bowser...?

#77 Posted by ZenGaijin (122 posts) -
@brainboy77:  It's not about being perfect no game is perfect. It's about becoming more than the sum of its parts. Mariop Galaxy1 just kept introducing new things even as the game was coming to a close it was a amazing experience. I am no Nintendo fan but there is no way you can play this game and see mario flying through space with his arms open while classic remixed mario music plays and not have a smile on your face.
 
The game is just damn good and very well made. There isn't anything else out there like it. I might fire up my Wii twice a year but I know when I get a mario game I am getting my moneys worth every time. 
 
I'm also 25 so the whole I'm to old for this game argument makes no sense to me.
#78 Posted by Jimbo (9800 posts) -
@Meowayne said:

" Jimbo: Care to give a few examples? As a Wii and 360 gamer (which I am sure you are not) my experience is quite different from what you try to sell. Great Wii games are usually downscored and are NOT given critical acclaim, and if they were released on the HD platforms they would get much more attention.  If in general Wii game ratings would adapt to "substantially lower standards", then why are there substantially less 90+ rated games for the Wii on metacritic and the likes? I am not talking about graphics and other technicalities - of course there is always a "... for a Wii game" after those, and rightfully so. But would you please provide evidence for your statement?  That SMG2 would not receive these scores if it was released on a technically similar level on the HD platforms is a very bold claim to make. And you're not only claiming that there is a difference, but a "substantial" one. "

A few examples of what?  Personally, I don't think any of the critically acclaimed Wii games would have been quite so critically acclaimed if they had been released on 360 in their current Wii condition, even if control parity were maintained - I obviously can't support that claim and I'm not pretending that I can, but that's my take on it.  It might not even be justified, I just think that's how it would go down.  Same deal if you take Mario off of the Mario games.  I don't believe Willy is correct when he says high expectations lead to harsher scoring; I think that high expectations lead to games being given the benefit of the doubt more than they otherwise would- and I think that's true on all platforms, the same thing applies just the same to Gears 2 or MW2 etc.  
 
Why are there less 90+ Wii games?  I don't know, either because less games are being reviewed on that platform or because there is less variation in quality - ie. less 'brilliant' games and less 'terrible' games.  IIRC, the platform averages on Metacritic were all nearly identical, which supports this and is also what you'd expect to see if the games are only being compared against games from the same platform and not the whole market.
 
Going back to my original post.  I'm not saying the "...for a Wii game" caveat only applies to graphics.  I'm saying that applies to any Wii (or 360 or PS3 etc.) review score they give, because that's literally how their (Gamespot's) scoring system works.  "We rate games on a scale of 1 (the absolute worst) to 10 (the absolute best). The rating we assign to each game is intended to give you an at-a-glance sense of the overall quality of the game relative to other games on the same platform."
 
Gamespot giving a Wii game 10/10 literally translates to "The absolute best... on the Wii".  That's all I'm saying, and it's confirmed right there on their site.  If they want to change how their review scale works, so that they are scoring games against the entire market - which I think would make far more sense to most of us that use reviews - then it'll be worth my while paying attention when they say something is the 'absolute best'.  Telling me something is the 'absolute best on the platform' is completely meaningless unless I already have an intimate knowledge of that platform, and it says nothing at all about how the game compares to the market as a whole.  I mean, given that I think everything else on the Wii looks like garbage, should I be buying a Wii so that I can play this game?  Is that how good it is?  I'm none the wiser.
#79 Posted by Icemael (6316 posts) -
@Jimbo: Gamespot's guidelines are pretty fuzzy (probably intentionally.) For example, if you read the rest of their review guidelines, you find this:
 
 "...relative comparisons do apply, so a game that scores poorly is a poor game by any standards, while a game that scores extremely high is an outstanding game by any standards. "
 
"Each game we review exists in a competitive environment. That is, a game always has direct or indirect competition from other, possibly very similar games, which causes the game in question to be held to a higher standard. In other words, while technical merits are generally particular to a specific gaming platform, we believe that certain collective, universal standards also exist. GameSpot editors are expected to be familiar with current games on all platforms, in order to maintain an acute sense of global standards for gaming at all times. "
 
So when Gamespot gives a Wii game 10/10, it can also translate to: "Technical merits aside the absolute best by collective, global, universal gaming standards."
#80 Posted by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

@Jimbo:
 
Let's take the second-to-last Gamespot Wii game review as an example. Sin & Punishment 2 scored 8.5/10. It's a StarFox-like shmup that while hugely praised got knocked down for a lack of online multiplayer and retarded story. Do you think that this game on the HD platforms (with updated/appropriate visuals, of course), reviewed by the same person, would've scored lower?

#81 Posted by Fallen189 (4988 posts) -
@Meowayne said:
" @Jimbo:  Let's take the second-to-last Gamespot Wii game review as an example. Sin & Punishment 2 scored 8.5/10. It's a StarFox-like shmup that while hugely praised got knocked down for a lack of online multiplayer and retarded story. Do you think that this game on the HD platforms (with updated/appropriate visuals, of course), reviewed by the same person, would've scored lower? "
I think personally that on a "HD console" it would, because people have been brainwashed into thinking that multiplayer is the be all and end all to a product.
#82 Edited by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

True, but I think we all agree that in terms of graphics and online functionality, lower standards for the Wii do exist.

#83 Posted by xyzygy (9949 posts) -

The reviews I've seen said that you can beat it in a few hours, but there is so much stuff to do aferwards that it will boggle your mind. In addition to the 120 stars, there are those other things you have to find... I forget what they're called though...

#84 Posted by Jimbo (9800 posts) -
@Icemael:  "If you ignore graphics and possibly controls too (if we feel like it), then by certain other, unnamed, universal standards... it's the best on the market!  P.S. Please ignore the bit right at the top where we said the opposite of this xx"  Hey thanks, Gamespot!  I know exactly where I stand with this game now.  It might or might not be the best depending on some criteria that you might or might not be using.  Got it.
 
For serious though, as soon as you use a single platform-specific / non-universal standard, then it becomes a platform-specific score, surely?  Particularly when you're dealing with "the best" and "not the best".  If by giving this game a 10 they're saying it's the best game that has ever been available on the market, then hell yeah I'm interested.  If they're saying it's the best game that has ever been available on the Wii, then I'm... less interested.
#85 Posted by DystopiaX (5300 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? "
this.
#86 Posted by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

It seems like you've already decided that there is nothing for you on the Wii, which makes you pretty trollish right now.
 

#87 Posted by TripMasterMunky (2402 posts) -

So it's as good as THPS3?

#88 Posted by demontium (4708 posts) -
@AlwaysAngry: This is what I said about it.
#89 Posted by Jimbo (9800 posts) -
@Meowayne said:
" @Jimbo:  Let's take the second-to-last Gamespot Wii game review as an example. Sin & Punishment 2 scored 8.5/10. It's a StarFox-like shmup that while hugely praised got knocked down for a lack of online multiplayer and retarded story. Do you think that this game on the HD platforms (with updated/appropriate visuals, of course), reviewed by the same person, would've scored lower? "
I'm not sure why it's getting a free visual makeover in the deal, and I've never heard of it, but going by their "on-rails shooter" bit and your "lack of online multiplayer" (and assuming it's not $10 or something) then yes, I would expect it to be openly mocked had it been a 360 shooter.
 
Am I wrong?  Have you tricked me with your secret Nintendo ways?
#90 Posted by mazik765 (2315 posts) -
@AlwaysAngry said:
 "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. "
I'd have to disagree. A lot of good games have suffered from trying to make a game longer for people in the mindset of longer = better. A recent example I can think of is Final Fantasy 13. When I started that game I was pleasantly surprised by the gameplay but after so many hours and feeling like the game was so stretched out that it actually made me not want to play it anymore.
#91 Posted by AlwaysAngry (2924 posts) -
@Meowayne said:
" True, but I think we all agree that in terms of graphics and online functionality, lower standards for the Wii do exist. "
And that's just fucked up. I agree with Yahtzee. It's like the big deal they made with Mad World being an "M" rated game just because it was on the Wii.
#92 Posted by Meteora (5787 posts) -

The game is Mario, what the hell do you expect? Its a good game. 
 
Its also dependent on the reviewer, and perhaps how much money corporations fork over for good reviews. Ryan for example, is the arguably the most harshest reviewer on GiantBomb. Higher standards maybe, or likes to nit pick out the bad things. 
 
Reviews mean absolutely nothing. You don't have to agree with another review. Just make a review of yourself.

#93 Posted by Jimbo (9800 posts) -
@Meowayne said:
" It seems like you've already decided that there is nothing for you on the Wii, which makes you pretty trollish right now.   "
I was correcting the OPs implied suggestion that a platform-specific review score could be used to compare the game (favourably or unfavourably) with another game from a different platform.  The review score doesn't say anything about how the game stacks up against RDR one way or the other.
 
Since then I've only been responding to others that addressed me first.  If you don't want an answer, then don't ask.
#94 Posted by Daroki (710 posts) -
@Jimbo said:
" @Willy105 said:

" @Jimbo said:

" @Willy105 said:
" @Jimbo said:
" Wii games are marked against other Wii games. "
Didn't stop the first one getting GOTY on the same site. "
Putting it right up there with Demon's Souls. "
That game wasn't great? "
Not GOTY great by most accounts, no.  Not even by Gamespot's account if you were to put any stock in their review scores, what with Uncharted 2 scoring higher than Demon's Souls and then somehow losing GOTY to it.  Gamespot seem somewhat inclined to court attention.
Did you listen to the explanation for why Demon's Souls got GOTY?  When you're doing a review score, you're pushing it out there so that it's relevant when you post the score.  But over a month later, Demon's Souls was STILL sticking with people, still luring people back to it while the other obvious GOTY nominees are beaten and stuck back on the shelf.  There's a difference in judging something right away and stepping back and having the time to really look at it from a different perspective.   
 
Does that mean it's the right choice?  It's their opinion, so unless they chose it solely to be the "cool contrarian kid" it's not the wrong choice, it's their opinion.
#95 Posted by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

Jimbo: Fair enough.
 
 


  The longer the better, unless it's a bad game.

You do realize how immensely wrong and contradictory this statement is? Length and pacing have a huge influence not only to the enjoyability of a game, but also on the creative process of developing it. A developers goal when developing a story- or pacing-driven game should never EVER be: "Make it as long as possible".   
"The longer, the better" is completely untrue of movies, music, books AND videogames. Just because you shelf out lots of moneys and are thus pleased that you sit a higher amount of hours in front of your telly doesn't mean its a better game. Quite the contrary - many "absolutely awesome" games are short ones, not despite their length, but because of it. 
Metal Gear Solid would not have been better if it was longer. Silent Hill 2 would not have been better if it was longer. Portal would not have been better if it was longer. Castle Crashers would not have been better if it was longer. 
 
There is something like a "perfect length" for every game. However, that length is different for every game and every genre and every story.
#96 Posted by EliasT (671 posts) -

Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3, GTA IV, Metal Gear Solid 4, and Soul Calibur were WAY MORE deserving of their 10/10's than SMBG2, and what makes this even worse, the Wii fanboys will be rubbing it in our faces for at least 3 years.
 
Seriously, at this point, I couldn't hate Super Mario any more. I wish Nintendo went out of business, I hate them that much.

#97 Posted by Meowayne (6084 posts) -

EliasT: That's cool that you played SMG2 and all the Wii's games in the last three years to make that kind of judgment. Please give us your review so we can understand better what is so wrong with Galaxy 2. : )

#98 Posted by Willy105 (4690 posts) -
@EliasT said:
" Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3, GTA IV, Metal Gear Solid 4, and Soul Calibur were WAY MORE deserving of their 10/10's than SMBG2, and what makes this even worse, the Wii fanboys will be rubbing it in our faces for at least 3 years.  Seriously, at this point, I couldn't hate Super Mario any more. I wish Nintendo went out of business, I hate them that much. "
Isn't that enough to get you banned? Anyway, sucks to be you. Your taste in games seems like a real burden.
#99 Posted by EliasT (671 posts) -
@Willy105 said:

" @EliasT said:

" Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3, GTA IV, Metal Gear Solid 4, and Soul Calibur were WAY MORE deserving of their 10/10's than SMBG2, and what makes this even worse, the Wii fanboys will be rubbing it in our faces for at least 3 years.  Seriously, at this point, I couldn't hate Super Mario any more. I wish Nintendo went out of business, I hate them that much. "
Isn't that enough to get you banned? Anyway, sucks to be you. Your taste in games seems like a real burden. "
 That isn't enough to get anybody banned.
 
And at least I don't have to buy any game that gets a 6-7 (rarely an 8, if Wii fanboys sacrifice 2 members a month instead of 1) and praise the fuck out of it because that's all my console has. You Wii fanboys make me sad.
#100 Posted by AgentJ (8778 posts) -
@Meowayne said:
" EliasT: Please give us your review so we can understand better what is so wrong with Galaxy 2. "
Yes please. I'd love to hear what you thought about yoshi's control scheme and all the other new features of the game.

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.