Since when does mid 70s as a score not literally equal "good" though?
Anyway this will be my first mario party game. I'm excited to play it with my little sister and my girlfriend. Seems really fun
I guess. That’s why I asked the question. All I know about Metacritic is that Jeff has said in the past that some publishers don’t like Giant Bomb’s 5 star system because getting 4 stars instead of 5 means you only get an 80 towards your average Metacritic score. The implication being an 80 isn’t a good score. I guess it doesn’t matter.
It’s got mostly positive reviews and no negative reviews, so there’s that.
As a kid I would play these games at a cousin's house, and thought they were dogshit. Just pure, undistilled, turds that someone pressed into an N64 cart. Really just irredeemable pieces of garbage that brought shame on the good Mario name.
But I had a lot of bad opinions as a 6 year old. I thought Broccoli was bad, I liked Taco Bell, I hated mayonnaise. Okay, I was dead on with that last one, but maybe I was wrong about this Mario Party thing. Maybe they deserve a second chance.
Does an average of 78 on Metacritic = good? That doesn’t seem that good...
This is 100% not a sarcastic reply, and I love it. I don't believe review scores are irrelevant, but you can forgive games journalists for trying to convince their peers that they're an anachronism when you read things like this.
Mario Party is above "scores" and "reviews".
The game series is only ever as good as the people you're playing it with.
Playing it with kids is a lot of fun.
Playing it with friends who may or may not be high, also fun.
Playing it in a serious competitive environment, bad, you're doing MP wrong.
Watching Giant Bomb play the series, even better.
A 78 on a test isn’t that good...
We're not talking about tests. We're talking about the average score drawn from subjective opinions of dozens (or more) of individual people with their own biases who may vehemently disagree with each other's opinions.
@htr10: That is a wider issue. If memory serves, Adam Sessler talked about it a fair amount.
Part of it is that a very coarse grain scale does tend to result in lower scores. But mostly it has to do with the thresholds provided by publishers and the like. I am not sure how popular it is these days, but a few years back it wasn't uncommon for a dev studio to get a bonus (or, more specifically, the amount of money they were promised...) for getting a metacritic average over a certain value. And, depending on the genre, that was generally in the 80s. So not having a "perfect" game tended to screw them as the 5-star sites would give them an 80%
Aside from that: Metacritic is generally an aggregation of mainstream sites (and then everyone else). So adjust accordingly. If a first person shooter isn't high 80s it is probably "trash". If a turn based strategy game is even at 80 then it might be one of the greatest ever made. And if something like Dwarf Fortress (had reviews and) managed to get over a 50 it is spectacular.
Given how the other MP games have been reviewed, 78 is very good. It’s barely bested by the first game (79), and better than other entries, who all posted scores between 62 and 74. It doesn’t necessarily make me more excited, but for those who like Mario Party it seems like a solid entry.
How is 78% not considered good for some people? If you translate that to a 5 point scale it would basically be a 4. It's way closer to a 4 than a 3. And in my opinion a 3 would be considered good. This seems to be a rotten leftover from publishers who would give bonuses to games that got 80%+.
So, glad I searched for this because I was going to start my own thread: the game is, in fact, good. VERY good in comparison to many other aspects of the series. The minigames are largely very solid, they give you a lot of stuff to do, and the feature of different characters having different dice is fun. The co-op mode as well is like some sort of weird, math-focused fun time that I never saw coming from their usual stuff that I've played.
My wife and I have played it A LOT and if you're even remotely interested I think it's worth $60. I do think that the boards themselves are a little lackluster and lacking, but there is a lot there if you want to dig for it. Just don't do Challenge Mode unless you want the characters it unlocks. It sucks, and surprisingly not because the minigames do. It's just kind of woefully uninspired.
We've dropped about 15 hours into the game according to the Switch, and that is an amount I NEVER would have thought possible. I just can't get over how surprisingly entertaining it is, and more importantly, how most of the minigames work very well.
Please Log In to post.
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.
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.
Log in to comment