Dante Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 (edited) NSMBW has enter the UK game charts at number four. Week 47, 2009 - Individual Formats (Units) 01 (01) 360 Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (Activision Blizzard) 02 (__) 360 Assassin's Creed Ii (Ubisoft) 03 (02) PS3 Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (Activision Blizzard) 04 (__) WII New Super Mario Bros. Wii (Nintendo) 05 (__) PS3 Assassin's Creed Ii (Ubisoft) 06 (03) WII Wii Sports Resort (Nintendo) 07 (04) WII Wii Fit Plus (Nintendo) 08 (__) 360 Left 4 Dead 2 (Electronic Arts) 09 (06) 360 Forza Motorsport 3 (Microsoft) 10 (11) WII Mario & Sonic At Olympic Winter Games (Sega) Edited November 23, 2009 by Dante
Sec Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 I'll just post to stress your point.LOOK AT THE DANCING KIRBY! God bless you! Look at him dance people! you cant tell me that the new super mario brothers is more entertaining than that??
Ronnie Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 Gotta love the little dance Koopa's do! Personally I'm not so keen. It's cute the first couple of times but after a while it gets a little silly. Especially when you time your jump to land on them but they suddenly stand still to do their dance, and you end up losing a life.
Mike Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 Personally I'm not so keen. It's cute the first couple of times but after a while it gets a little silly. Especially when you time your jump to land on them but they suddenly stand still to do their dance, and you end up losing a life. That's why you have to time your jumps with the music in those instances. I think it's a really neat feature, and I wish all enemies did it.
Serebii Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 That's why you have to time your jumps with the music in those instances. I think it's a really neat feature, and I wish all enemies did it. Cheep Cheeps spin
Diageo Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 I love the little dancing the do, so awesome.
Shino Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 The game got 40/40 in Famitsu. What doesn't nowadays.
Ren of Heavens Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 Review score inflation? Seven 2008/2009 games have got 40/40: 7. Super Smash Bros. Brawl (2008) 8. Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots (2008) 9. 428 (2008) 10. Dragon Quest IX (2009) 11. Monster Hunter Tri (2009) 12. Bayonetta (2009) 13. New Super Mario Bros. Wii (2009) Prior to that only six games in Famitsu's 23 year old history have received full score.
Epic fail Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 Just played multiplayer it is AWESOME but frustrating
nekunando Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 This arrived on Thursday morning but for some reason I have found myself drawn back towards New Super Mario Bros. on the DS to hunt down all the Star Coins I think I maybe want to take care of that before I properly delve into New Super Mario Bros. Wii I did, however, play through the first few levels with my brother last night and it seems promising
darksnowman Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 The game got 40/40 in Famitsu. Just seen this. I really didn't expect NSMB Wii to get a perfect score. Review score inflation? Seven 2008/2009 games have got 40/40: 7. Super Smash Bros. Brawl (2008) 8. Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots (2008) 9. 428 (2008) 10. Dragon Quest IX (2009) 11. Monster Hunter Tri (2009) 12. Bayonetta (2009) 13. New Super Mario Bros. Wii (2009) Prior to that only six games in Famitsu's 23 year old history have received full score. Atleast its difficult to pick what they will rate highly. Of those games you've listed, there's a good spread of genres and consoles. Maybe games are just getting better and better as time goes on?
mcj metroid Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 Just seen this. I really didn't expect NSMB Wii to get a perfect score.? neither did I. Jesus it isn't a perfect game like but whatever. japanese are odd. I can't wait to get mine though.
Fierce_LiNk Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 Review score inflation? Seven 2008/2009 games have got 40/40: 7. Super Smash Bros. Brawl (2008) 8. Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots (2008) 9. 428 (2008) 10. Dragon Quest IX (2009) 11. Monster Hunter Tri (2009) 12. Bayonetta (2009) 13. New Super Mario Bros. Wii (2009) Prior to that only six games in Famitsu's 23 year old history have received full score. Hmm, maybe they feel under pressure in this day and age to give out higher scores? I mean, these are all important games, so maybe they feel that they need to be dishing out maximum scores? Honest opinion, I think it's very dodgey ground when you start giving out 10/10s or 100/100 or whatever. There is always room for improvement somewhere. To give out a maximum score, you'd have to say that there are no flaws within the game whatsoever, and that no stone would be unturned. I think if they keep giving out such high scores, it'll hurt their credibility.
Shino Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 Hmm, maybe they feel under pressure in this day and age to give out higher scores? I mean, these are all important games, so maybe they feel that they need to be dishing out maximum scores? Honest opinion, I think it's very dodgey ground when you start giving out 10/10s or 100/100 or whatever. There is always room for improvement somewhere. To give out a maximum score, you'd have to say that there are no flaws within the game whatsoever, and that no stone would be unturned. I think if they keep giving out such high scores, it'll hurt their credibility. That's a bit unfair, a game might be a 10/10 awesome game but it will never be perfect. If we went by true perfection, we might as well scratch the 10 and make a 9/9 scale. However I agree that dishing out so many 10s in such a small amount of time has lost them some credibility. When WW received its 40/40 it was perceived as a huge achievement to get such score from Famitsu, heck, even 39/40 and 38/40 scores were seen in very high regard. Lol, I sound like solitanze.
Fierce_LiNk Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 That's a bit unfair, a game might be a 10/10 awesome game but it will never be perfect. If we went by true perfection, we might as well scratch the 10 and make a 9/9 scale. However I agree that dishing out so many 10s in such a small amount of time has lost them some credibility. When WW received its 40/40 it was perceived as a huge achievement to get such score from Famitsu, heck, even 39/40 and 38/40 scores were seen in very high regard. Lol, I sound like solitanze. How is it unfair? If you give a really, really awesome game 10/10, then what would you give a game which is better than that? 11/10? 10/10 is a perfect score. You can't get any more points than that. So, what it is saying is that the game could not physically be any better. If a game could be better, then how could it warrant a 10/10 score? A maximum score? That's part of the problem with review scores. Take the latest Dead Space review on N-E for example. How many people in the comments section just commented on the 8/10 or the 3/5 for graphics rather than what the review itself actually said? For some reason, the perception is that 8 is good but not quite good enough, and that everyone big game needs to be either scoring a 9/10 or 10/10. I think the review was spot on, myself.
mcj metroid Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 That's a bit unfair, a game might be a 10/10 awesome game but it will never be perfect. If we went by true perfection, we might as well scratch the 10 and make a 9/9 scale. However I agree that dishing out so many 10s in such a small amount of time has lost them some credibility. When WW received its 40/40 it was perceived as a huge achievement to get such score from Famitsu, heck, even 39/40 and 38/40 scores were seen in very high regard. Lol, I sound like solitanze. 9/9 would still be perfect though. Scores are almost meaningless to me, but not to most people. A perfect 10 should be reserved for the very best. There isn't a single thing wrong with super mario galaxy for example..
Shino Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 How is it unfair? If you give a really, really awesome game 10/10, then what would you give a game which is better than that? 11/10? 10/10 is a perfect score. You can't get any more points than that. So, what it is saying is that the game could not physically be any better. If a game could be better, then how could it warrant a 10/10 score? A maximum score? But then, when will you give a ten? Nothing is perfect, and there will always be a game that is better than the other, not to mention that a good part of the score is subjective. What's the point of having a scale that you'll never use the top score. That's part of the problem with review scores. Take the latest Dead Space review on N-E for example. How many people in the comments section just commented on the 8/10 or the 3/5 for graphics rather than what the review itself actually said? For some reason, the perception is that 8 is good but not quite good enough, and that everyone big game needs to be either scoring a 9/10 or 10/10. I think the review was spot on, myself. Most people won't bother with the actual text and I believe the review model most sites use is unadjusted with what its readers actually expect. 9/9 would still be perfect though. Scores are almost meaningless to me, but not to most people. A perfect 10 should be reserved for the very best. There isn't a single thing wrong with super mario galaxy for example.. I love Mario Galaxy, its probably my favourite game ever and as such I would give it a 10/10. But it is certainly not perfect, specially if we're going to start comparing to possible future games that are "more perfect" than Galaxy.
Fierce_LiNk Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 But then, when will you give a ten? Nothing is perfect, and there will always be a game that is better than the other, not to mention that a good part of the score is subjective. What's the point of having a scale that you'll never use the top score. When a game is created, the creators will no doubt be aiming for that 10, that perfect game. There could be a game created where there are no flaws or areas that could be improved upon, and then THAT game would fully deserve its perfect score. Consider a review like a test. If you get everything absolutely right, you score full marks. If you make a mistake, you lose a mark here and there. I just don't think that 10's should be given for the sake of it, just to make a game look good when maybe it doesn't deserve a 10. A ten is a perfect score and it should be treated like one. I don't see how anyone can argue that? Most people won't bother with the actual text and I believe the review model most sites use is unadjusted with what its readers actually expect. I tend to ignore 99% of reviews. If I need to learn about a game, I find out about impressions and stuff on the forum here. I love Mario Galaxy, its probably my favourite game ever and as such I would give it a 10/10. But it is certainly not perfect, specially if we're going to start comparing to possible future games that are "more perfect" than Galaxy. When you give a score to one game, you are marking the game as it is there and then. You're not really thinking about it 10 years or something down the line. But, say you mark Call of Duty: Modern Warfare a 10. What happens if Modern Warfare 2 comes out and then improves upon what the first game did? There's a problem there, isn't there? Do they automatically have to give the sequel a 10 if the game is indeed better than its predecessor? That's the problem people set themselves up for when they start giving out such huge scores. It's biting Famitsu in the arse right now. Seven 40/40 games in 2008/2009. I just find that hard to believe, considering that in the past they gave the scores out sparingly. So, either: 1. The standard of videogames has clearly risen and these games are all exceptional and perfect games. 2. Famitsu have changed their review model and are less lenient when giving out these scores. 3. They've got it wrong. Maybe the standard has risen. It's a great time to be a gamer. 3 great systems, so many great games. But, there are also so many challenges out there. It is challenging to make that "classic" game.
Ronnie Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 (edited) 9/9 would still be perfect though. Scores are almost meaningless to me, but not to most people. A perfect 10 should be reserved for the very best. There isn't a single thing wrong with super mario galaxy for example.. Totally agree. 10/10's should be reserved for the very best games. They don't have to be perfect but they should be regarded as one of the top games out there. There's no such thing as gaming perfection, but there are games that get close. EDGE magazine handles 10/10's perfectly. They've given what, 8 of them so far? And you'd find it hard to argue with most of those 8. Mario 64, Ocarina and Mario Galaxy from Nintendo. What would you give those Fierce Link? 9/10? Of course not. It's when reviewers start giving games 8.2 or 76% that I just don't take seriously. Again, EDGE has it right, reviews should either be /5 or in gaming terms, /10. No decimal places. A ten is a perfect score and it should be treated like one. I don't see how anyone can argue that? You're overthinking things way too much. Some leeway needs to be given otherwise why not just mark games out of 9? But then, 9/9 would be perfect and no game would get that perfect score, and so on. The line has to be drawn somewhere. The very best games get 10/10. A simple concept surely?? Edited November 24, 2009 by Ronnie
Fierce_LiNk Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 (edited) Totally agree. 10/10's should be reserved for the very best games. They don't have to be perfect but they should be regarded as one of the top games out there. There's no such thing as gaming perfection, but there are games that get close. EDGE magazine handles 10/10's perfectly. They've given what, 8 of them so far? And you'd find it hard to argue with most of those 8. Mario 64, Ocarina and Mario Galaxy from Nintendo. What would you give those Fierce Link? 9/10? Of course not. It's when reviewers start giving games 8.2 or 76% that I just don't take seriously. Again, EDGE has it right, reviews should either be /5 or in gaming terms, /10. No decimal places. Out of the list you've give me there, Ocarina of Time is the one that I consider is perfect. Never been a huge fan of Mario 64 at all. I can understand it and appreciate it, but it is by no means perfect. It's a great game, but I've often felt it was a tad bit over-rated. Never clicked with it as much as the rest of the gaming population did. Ocarina would get the 10, as that really is flawless, and Mario 64 would get a 9/10. Both are brilliant games. Galaxy is great too, and what is the problem with giving that a 9/10? Haha, a game doesn't have to be given 10/10 to be considered a classic. That's crazy. It's a brilliant game, sublime, but I haven't been right the way through it. Ask me again in a few months when I finish it. I'm slow with games. Tonight, the tv is being used to see Liverpool crash out of the Champions League. This is my football and gaming telly, haha. Right now, I love the game, love the controls, but I do not love the boss battles, which can be a bit dull, in all honesty. I know many others have commented on the difficulty of the game, some saying that it is perhaps a bit too easy. There have been a couple of times where I've not had to challenge myself, but it has caught me out a few times. So, my mind isn't 100% on that yet. At this point in time, 95% is what I would give it. Seriously, reviews have to use decimal places or odd numbers, because it isn't easy to just give each individual game a nice round number. There are various degrees of goodness. A game isn't simply "Good. Great. Crap. Average." It's a lot more complicated for that, and thats why the scores need to reflect it. If a game is bluddy good but not quite brilliant, why wouldn't it be given an 85 or 8.5 or something? Why does it have to be an 8 or a 9? Some sites review with 1-10, and some review with 1-100. Generally, I think you leave yourself more leeway with 1-100. You're overthinking things way too much. Some leeway needs to be given otherwise why not just mark games out of 9? But then, 9/9 would be perfect and no game would get that perfect score, and so on. The line has to be drawn somewhere. The very best games get 10/10. A simple concept surely?? As mcj correctly pointed out (and as you did) marking a game out of 9 would not solve the problem whatsoever. So, I don't see what you're trying to say there. Yes, I am saying that. 10/10 is reserved for the absolute best games that are out there. However, the 10/10 score is being given out far, far too easily by too many reviewers. Once again, check those Famitsu scores. Seven in 2008/2009. Can you put your hand on your heart and say that each of those are perfect games? As much as I love Brawl, it is not a perfect game. It's brilliant, they have done some marvellous things with it, but I think they're marking that too highly. I think too many people want to give out the score because, lets face it, having a 10/10 score attached to the game looks damn impressive, doesn't it? But, just because the score is there does not mean it needs to be given. How many games have you seen given out 0/10? There are some hideous games out there. But, are any hideous enough to earn that? If not, does this mean that the scale starts off at 1? Edited November 24, 2009 by Fierce_LiNk Automerged Doublepost
Ronnie Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 Seriously, reviews have to use decimal places or odd numbers, because it isn't easy to just give each individual game a nice round number. There are various degrees of goodness. A game isn't simply "Good. Great. Crap. Average." It's a lot more complicated for that, and thats why the scores need to reflect it. If a game is bluddy good but not quite brilliant, why wouldn't it be given an 85 or 8.5 or something? Why does it have to be an 8 or a 9? Some sites review with 1-10, and some review with 1-100. Generally, I think you leave yourself more leeway with 1-100. Disagree with pretty much all of that. Decimal points or percentage scores are ridiculous and if you can't see that then I shouldn't bother trying to explain because it won't change your mind. But I'll have a go... What's the difference between 64% and 66%? How exactly are computer games, things which are incredibly subjective in the first place, depending on who's playing them, supposed to be narrowed down into 100 units of greatness? It's the very fact that games are so subjective that means a scale of 0-10 with no decimals is PERFECT. The score is just there to give an indication. It's not supposed to be some scientific, complex specific score out of 100. It's supposed to be a general guide. Give the reader a basic score out of 10 they think the game is worth, and let them make their own mind up about the specifics. Why do you think movies aren't rated out of 100 and instead mostly are reviewed using 5 stars? It's not supposed to be specific, it's a general guide. The very best games created (including revolutionary ones like Mario 64) deserve 10/10. I think too many people want to give out the score because, lets face it, having a 10/10 score attached to the game looks damn impressive, doesn't it? But, just because the score is there does not mean it needs to be given. How many games have you seen given out 0/10? There are some hideous games out there. But, are any hideous enough to earn that? If not, does this mean that the scale starts off at 1? Now you're changing your argument. You originally questioned how in the world games should get 10/10 and how no game was perfect, so why should games get 10. Now you're saying that some sites are too quick to give out 10's, which I agree with. I'll say it again, Edge do it perfectly. They've given 8 10's since they started publishing, most of which are spot on I would say.
mcj metroid Posted November 24, 2009 Posted November 24, 2009 Scores are there for comparing with other games, but then how do you compare an rpg with a fps? instead of scores it should be seperated into it's own category. GAMES TM kinda do that. For example super mario sunshine better than:Billy hatcher and the giant egg worse than: super mario galaxy. that kind of system but better implemented and futher in depth. Nobody is ever going to compare final fantasy to halo but the scores compare everything. There are a few problems that come up in this system however. The main one being arguing about genre. What is metroid prime for instance?
Recommended Posts