New Super Mario Bros. Wii

[Fierce_LiNk]

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?

 

If you're saying that, then why bother with scores at all? Why bother giving out a 7 or an 8 if they are one unit apart? The score is an indicator, isn't it? The difference between the 64% game and 66% game is that there are minor things which the later does better than the first. In a game reviewed at 6 out of 10, there are things which the game "does better" than a game rated 5/10, correct? With games seperate by a few percent, the differences are much more minor. It could be with regards to one particular issue, or maybe several minor issues.

 

 

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.

 

I know Empire rate in 5 stars, but not all publications do that. And, personally, I don't like that particular system. So, you mention what is the difference between 64% and 66%: Well, what about the difference between 3 out of 5 and 4 out of 5? I've always thought the "out of 5" system is a strange one because there isn't even a halfway score. 2 out of 5 is below halfway and 3 out of 5 is above halfway. So, what exactly does each score stand for? "Terrible, under average, above average, great, classic?" Is it really that simple? Of course not. Also, notice that jump between above average and great. Or is it "terrible, not worth seeing, worth seeing, good, great"?

 

The very best games created (including revolutionary ones like Mario 64) deserve 10/10.

 

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.

 

Maybe I'm being a bit stupid and have misread my own posts (I've looked over and I can't see what you're refering to) but where have I changed my argument and where did I say that no game was perfect?

 

In my original post, I said this: "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."

 

Then, in a later post, I said:

"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?"

 

And, originally, I stated this: "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?"

 

So, what I said was that (which is actually in agreement with you!) Famitsu are giving out perfect scores too easily. That was my original post. The 40/40 score or 10/10 (or 100/100) is the most perfect score that any game could get. It is very prestigious. Like I mentioned, Ocarina of Time would get my perfect score because there is nothing that I believe could be done to improve it. I've been over that game for 10 years and to this day I have no idea where I'd improve it. By the looks of things, Nintendo are struggling to top that.

 

I don't see where my argument has changed anywhere. But, if anyone feels brave, can anyone argue that Super Mario Bros Wii is a game deserving of a maximum score? I haven't played it yet, so I'll have to wait on that. But, judging by the reactions on here, there are similar issues with some areas that featured in the DS version. Notably, the difficulty.

[Ronnie]

Scores are there for comparing with other games, but then how do you compare an rpg with a fps?

 

Exactly, and how can you compare a 62% game with a 65% one? Some people might think one is worth 61 and the other 66, or vice versa. General scores give a good indication as to the quality of the game, without over-analysing something that is ultimately up to the gamer to like or dislike.

 

If you're saying that, then why bother with scores at all? Why bother giving out a 7 or an 8 if they are one unit apart? The score is an indicator, isn't it? The difference between the 64% game and 66% game is that there are minor things which the later does better than the first. In a game reviewed at 6 out of 10, there are things which the game "does better" than a game rated 5/10, correct? With games seperate by a few percent, the differences are much more minor. It could be with regards to one particular issue, or maybe several minor issues.

 

 

You've over-analysing things in a way that is extremely dim-witted.

 

"Why bother with scores at all"? They're an indicator as to the quality of the game! a 9/10 is a fantastic must buy game, a 5/10 is average. 7/10 is very good. It's up to the person playing the game to decide on specifics. How can you fail to grasp such a simple concept??

 

And your comparison of two games, one that has 64% and one 66% is also flawed. How can you compare 'minor differences' in quality as you say, if both games are of different genres? One is a Zelda game say, the other is Wii Fit. You can't, and that's why the whole % marking is ridiculous.

 

 

I know Empire rate in 5 stars, but not all publications do that. And, personally, I don't like that particular system. So, you mention what is the difference between 64% and 66%: Well, what about the difference between 3 out of 5 and 4 out of 5? I've always thought the "out of 5" system is a strange one because there isn't even a halfway score. 2 out of 5 is below halfway and 3 out of 5 is above halfway. So, what exactly does each score stand for? "Terrible, under average, above average, great, classic?" Is it really that simple? Of course not. Also, notice that jump between above average and great. Or is it "terrible, not worth seeing, worth seeing, good, great"?

 

 

So you would rate films out of 100? F-ing hell. The 5 (or at a push 10) star rating system for movies is used in the vast majority of cases around the world for a reason.

 

The rest of this quote you go all over-complicated and analytical again, whilst failing to understand that review scores aren't supposed to be specific. That's what the REVIEW itself is for. Are you saying that your way of reviewing movies is better than the tried and tested method that's in place in 95% of cases?

 

 

Maybe I'm being a bit stupid and have misread my own posts (I've looked over and I can't see what you're refering to) but where have I changed my argument and where did I say that no game was perfect?

 

In my original post, I said this: "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."

 

Then, in a later post, I said:

"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?"

 

And, originally, I stated this: "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?"

 

So, what I said was that (which is actually in agreement with you!) Famitsu are giving out perfect scores too easily. That was my original post. The 40/40 score or 10/10 (or 100/100) is the most perfect score that any game could get. It is very prestigious. Like I mentioned, Ocarina of Time would get my perfect score because there is nothing that I believe could be done to improve it. I've been over that game for 10 years and to this day I have no idea where I'd improve it. By the looks of things, Nintendo are struggling to top that.

 

I don't see where my argument has changed anywhere. But, if anyone feels brave, can anyone argue that Super Mario Bros Wii is a game deserving of a maximum score? I haven't played it yet, so I'll have to wait on that. But, judging by the reactions on here, there are similar issues with some areas that featured in the DS version. Notably, the difficulty.

 

All this bollocks about 10 out of 10 supposedly referring to a game that has 'no flaws whatsoever' is just that, bollocks. No game is flawless. 10/10 scores are indicators of the utmost quality, must own games, not perfection.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Ronnie
Automerged Doublepost

[Fierce_LiNk]

Exactly, and how can you compare a 62% game with a 65% one? Some people might think one is worth 61 and the other 66, or vice versa. General scores give a good indication as to the quality of the game, without over-analysing something that is ultimately up to the gamer to like or dislike.

 

You've over-analysing things in a way that is extremely dim-witted.

 

Why bother with scores at all? As an indicator as to the quality of the game. a 9/10 is a fantastic must buy game, a 5/10 is average. 7/10 is very good. It's up to the person playing the game to decide on specifics. How can you fail to grasp such a simple concept??

 

 

Oh dear. It really isn't an over-analysis, but the system clearly needs to be taken seriously. One of the reasons why Edge are held in such high regard is that they take their reviews seriously. Now, some sites choose to use the 1-10 system, and other sites use the 1-100.

 

Personally, I prefer the second one, because whilst the score is just an indicator, it is a scale within a scale. That is one concept which you have simply not grasped. As a gamer, you should know that things are not simply black and white, and that there are various degrees of "goodness" as I like to call it. 60% is the equivalent of 6 out of 10, but then you look at the sub-level within that. 64% is closer to a low 60, and 66 is a high sixty. That is why I like this particular method.

 

One such example I am going to use is Cel Damage on the Gamecube. A good little game, very good at what it did, excellent multiplayer...but there were so many issues. It was a good little game, but not great. Just missing one or two little finishing touches. In your review, I would have given it a 6 out of 10. In mine, it's a high 6, so along the lines of a 67%. That is a simple concept I think you need to understand. Whilst the score is just an indication, I personally find the percentage based indicator gives you far more insight about the game than the simple 1-10 does.

 

I would also like to point out that in my post I Clearly stated that "The score is an indicator, isn't it?" And that in your system, the scores of 6 and 7 are only one unit apart. You have not addressed this fact. Is the line between a good and great game or average and good game so thin? That is another reason why I prefer the 1-100.

 

 

And your comparison of two games, one that has 64% and one 66% is also flawed. How can you compare 'minor differences' in quality as you say, if both games are of different genres? One is a Zelda game say, the other is Wii Fit. You can't, and that's why the whole % marking is ridiculous.

 

Well, you "created the flaw" by comparing Wii Fit to Zelda. Lets just stick with your system of 6/10 now, shall we? Lets say we give Zelda a 6 and Wii Fit a 5. How can you justify one score over the other? You're going to say you can't, because they are two different genres. Which is spot on. So, why did you choose two different genres in the first place? If you're attempting to redicule my point, try a little harder please.

 

If you're going to compare ANY games with each other, they would obviously need to be within the same genre. Lets compare Pro Evo with Fifa, for example. Same genre, but there are differences within them. The presentation in Fifa is something that Pro Evo has never touched upon, for example. The main difference first of all would be the controls for Pro Evo Wii. But, you mark each game on its own merits. Both of these games have positives and negatives, and I think they actually contrast each other quite well. The slick gameplay which Pro Evo has managed for years is becoming more and more apparant in Fifa nowadays, whilst also improving on its previous good points.

 

So you would rate films out of 100? F-ing hell. The 5 (or at a push 10) star rating system for movies is used in the vast majority of cases around the world for a reason.

 

The rest of this quote you go all over-complicated and analytical again, whilst failing to understand that review scores aren't supposed to be specific. That's what the REVIEW itself is for. Are you saying that your way of reviewing movies is better than the tried and tested method that's in place in 95% of cases?

 

Whoa, where did I say I would rate films out of 100? I also like how you have clearly not read my point about there not being a halfway point when reviewing a film out of 5.

 

Again, what? I was pointing out the obvious problems, which as far as I am concerned are as clear as daylight. I'm going to ignore the rest of your post until you learn to read my posts word for word. Clearly you think that you can seperate games and movies by "good" "bad" "great" and you can't, because there are many shades of grey. Again, look at the Dead Space review on N-E. Does this mean the game is Good or Great? It doesn't work like that.

 

Thank you for your time, it was interesting seeing your points of you. However, I think you really need to be more appreciative of other people's points of view. It would help if you read posts carefully in future.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Fierce_LiNk

[Coolness Bears]

Flinky I'm gonna have to give your points...

 

37%

 

Which is my highest rating. If you want crazy ratings come to me. :p

[Shorty]

Please get the conversation back on topic guys. If you want to discuss in immense details the merits of various methods of numerical reviewing then make a thread about it or something.

 

To bring this back to Mario: I recently started playing this game. I think it's... good. It's not amazing, but it's good. Somewhere between 83% and 86% I'd say *snigger*. My first impressions are that the worlds seem very short! We reach a boss thinking we must've taken some sort of shortcut that we hadn't noticed. But at the same time, it's a little bit more punishing than its DS counterpart, which stretches it out somewhat.

 

Although it may just be hard because my co-op partner is a girl, and girls seem to suck at Mario games (kidding!) Still, the co-op aspects could've been done a little better, so far I haven't really felt any merit to working together. You can throw each other around, but since the game was basically designed to be played either way, there's usually no reason to.

 

With the iffy aspects out of the way, I love the quirkyness of the levels and the variety from one world to the next. The penguin suit is cute although I was perhaps hoping for something a little more widely useful. Tanuki suit...I miss you. The music, visuals (while a bit jaggedy) and general playability all have that warm Nintendo charm about them.

 

What I can't help wondering, however (as I did when playing the DS game) is why are we playing a game that has evolved from Super Mario Bros., instead of Super Mario Bros. 3 or Super Mario World?

[Fierce_LiNk]

Flinky I'm gonna have to give your points...

 

37%

 

Which is my highest rating. If you want crazy ratings come to me. :p

 

Screw you, Coolness.

 

Sorry, Mr. Shorty, sir.

[Coolness Bears]

Screw you, Coolness.

 

Sorry, Mr. Shorty, sir.

 

Hehe!

 

I was agreeing with you in case you didn't get that.

 

Anyway I forgot the game came out. >___< I want it so bad.

[yesteryeargames]

scores aside there is no doubt that the game is awsome fun love it id probly rate it 9/10

famitsu what if they release another mario bros wii and it has more levels, online wifi, and build your own stage and share them options like Little big planet, then what 41/40?

[Ronnie]

Can't be bothered stating the obvious or arguing any more, we're not going to change each other's minds and as Mr Shorty says this topic is about Mario. So....

 

Who else thinks the map screens are fantastic? Gorgeously designed and I love how dynamic they are with the walking caterpillars or bullet bills.

 

Is anyone a little disappointed with World 9 though? The map music is pretty rubbish and the levels, whilst a tad harder, are a bit boring. The same as we had all game. The great thing about star road in Mario World was that firstly it was mixed in with the game from the start but more importantly, the levels were a bit different from the norm. Different goals, a couple were a bit strange to play, they were at night, the fact that you had to find the lock and key was also a bit different etc. Then you had the 10 levels AFTER the star road which were fantastic. Maybe it's just me, I was just hoping for more. Although to be fair I've only played the first 5 so far.

 

[yesteryeargames]

love world 6 the music

[Dante]

[Helmsly]

Sorry if this was already posted, but the 'Iwata Ask's' is up for this game. I'd say its the best one yet and very interesting as always. They talk about the early Nintendo games from Mario's history and other things Miyamoto has worked on

 

http://us.wii.com/iwata_asks/nsmb/vol1_page1.jsp

Edited November 25, 2009 by Helmsly

[Hero-of-Time]

I totally agree with this part of the interview. They were talking about the Super Guide Block feature popping up and just as they said I was making sure it didn't happen to me.

 

Iwata: You have your pride as a gamer, after all! (laughs)

 

Miyamoto: I can't forgive myself! (laughs) That's why I'll try my best to complete the level in seven attempts or less.

 

Im not sure about this part though...

 

Miyamoto: That's why I wanted something to appear for players who didn't allow the hint block to pop up.

 

Iwata: Something for players who've done really well?

 

Miyamoto: Right. For those players, there are medals awarded for not bringing up a hint block that are displayed on the title screen.

 

I didn't see any medals when I finished the game. Im assuming he's on about the Star next to your save file.

[Ronnie]

 

Absolutely.

 

AWESOME level.

[nekunando]

Well.. I went through New Super Mario Bros. on the DS to get every Star Coin and noticed that nothing happened I was actually a little surprised so I think it might be time to treat New Super Mario Bros. Wii as my reward

[Ronnie]

Well.. I went through New Super Mario Bros. on the DS to get every Star Coin and noticed that nothing happened I was actually a little surprised so I think it might be time to treat New Super Mario Bros. Wii as my reward

 

I don't think anything happens but you can get the last graphic in the purple mushroom hut in world 1.

 

To get the 3 stars on the title screen you need to get all the star coins, find all the secret exits, use all the cannons, and spend all your coins so nothing is left.

[Happenstance]

Got my rental copy of this through the post this morning and just completed World 1. Really enjoying it so far. I loved New Super Mario Bros on the DS so its not a big suprise that id love this. Nice aswell that its got more of a Mario Bros 3 feel to it, like the DS version had with the original Super Mario Bros.

 

My one complaint would be the motion controls, I dont think they were needed. Im happy enough just playing it normally.

[Hero-of-Time]

After my initial feeling of meh towards the game im loving it more and more on my second playthrough. Trying to get the Star Coins is where the action is for me and its really drawing me into the game. I've just fully finished world 5 now and I really want to start R Evil: DC but I can't pull myself away from this.

 

On my travels I found Wendy a pushover this time around. Out of all of the bosses she was the one who caused me the most trouble due to the water levels rising and her firing off projectiles. This time I didn't let her get the chance to fire more than one off as I just do the old tech of timing your jumps as soon as they pop out of their shells.

[Dante]

I didn't see any medals when I finished the game. Im assuming he's on about the Star next to your save file.

 

Unlockable: Save File Stars

 

Performing special actions will award you stars on your save file.

Here are the stars you can earn:

Star 1 - Beat the game (you can use Warp Cannons)

Star 2 - Collect all 24 Star Coins in World 9

Star 3 - Beat every "normal" level in the game,i.e., you don't need to find Secret Goals.

Star 4 - Collect all 207 Star Coins in the first 8 Worlds

Star 5 - Beat every level, find every secret goal and use all of the Warp Cannons.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Dante

[Hero-of-Time]

After an all day session on this I have finally got all of the stars next to my profile!

 

 

You get this next message when you finish everything in the game, I took a picture of it but I will put it in a spoiler box for those who don't want to see it yet.

 

 

 

World 9 is very challenging, the levels are small but very intense with no checkpoints. Level 9-7 and 9-4 took me a while to get all of the star coins as there was so much going on and one mistake it was back to the start of the level.

 

Here's a pic of what happens when you get 99 lives.

 

 

 

Now for a quick break and to start R Evil!

[yesteryeargames]

guys spoilers ?

[Tellyn]

guys spoilers ?

 

He spoiler tagged the spoilers...

[Fierce_LiNk]

He spoiler tagged the spoilers...

 

I think he meant Dante's post? About what you need to do to get the stars.

 

So, Hero, it looks like you now love this game? What are your thoughts after completion?

[Hero-of-Time]

So, Hero, it looks like you now love this game? What are your thoughts after completion?

 

I loved it the more I played it and getting the final Star Coins for 100% gave me the challenge I was looking for and what the reviews promised.

 

Its much better than its DS brother but I still don't rate it as highly as Super Mario World or Super Mario Bros 3. This is probably for the reason that BlueStar stated earlier in the topic in that we played these games first and when we were kids, so we have that nostaglic feeling tied to those games.

 

After all was said and done, I loved it to bits.

 

Bring on Mario Galaxy 2!!

[mcj metroid]

This is very very good, A lot more imaginative than I thought and actually a lot better looking than I thought videos dont do this justice at all...

 

Multiplayer isn't perfect but it's the things that make it hilarious. You cannot play seriously on multiplayer