Super Mario 3D World (Nov 29th)

[Sheikah]

I find it quite interesting that N-E, a specialist Nintendo site, has actually marked both Zelda and Mario lower than the consensus from the mainstream press. Maybe both me and Ashley were looking for something different - I don't think either of us thought that either Mario or Zelda weren't great games that are worth buying - but our praise wasn't quite as universal.

 

What I conclude from this, is really, I'm not really going to take any more notice to review scores. It's the content of a review (and the game itself) that matters, not a number that's assigned to it. Zelda was one of my favourite games this year, but that didn't stop me having criticisms of it.

 

TLDR Review scores receive too much attention, people should read more, recent Nintendo games are great despite some flaws,

 

I think you guys are just more down to Earth and realistic with your expectations (without doubt a good thing).

[peterl0]

I find it quite interesting that N-E, a specialist Nintendo site, has actually marked both Zelda and Mario lower than the consensus from the mainstream press. Maybe both me and Ashley were looking for something different - I don't think either of us thought that either Mario or Zelda weren't great games that are worth buying - but our praise wasn't quite as universal.

 

What I conclude from this, is really, I'm not really going to take any more notice to review scores. It's the content of a review (and the game itself) that matters, not a number that's assigned to it. Zelda was one of my favourite games this year, but that didn't stop me having criticisms of it.

 

TLDR Review scores receive too much attention, people should read more, recent Nintendo games are great despite some flaws,

 

Having re-read the mario review though there really is not that much positive in it. If review scores are going to be dropped or ignored, the reviewer needs to do some more legwork for praising a games strengths rather than picking apart the weaknesses.

 

EDGE reviews used to gave the same problem - assume you know they think the game is excellent and only list the flaws.

[Ashley]

Having re-read the mario review though there really is not that much positive in it. If review scores are going to be dropped or ignored, the reviewer needs to do some more legwork for praising a games strengths rather than picking apart the weaknesses.

 

EDGE reviews used to gave the same problem - assume you know they think the game is excellent and only list the flaws.

 

If I'm honest, I'd drop review scores if it were not for aggregating sites and what not that help push business. It's a dirty part of the business, but it is what it is.

 

I did take a lot of time coming to that score, and my gut led me to a 7 initially, but after going through the individual scores (gameplay, sound etc) and giving them a 4 it seemed like it was an 8 overall.

 

Ultimately my opinions could be summed up with "its fine, not great but fine. It's the best we can expect from the Wii U and Nintendo at the moment tbf. Neither groundbreaking or spectacular, but a decent title amongst the rough"

 

I think that's why it's getting high scores, because its in a very shallow pool. If this were a multiplatform title I think scores would be around the 7 mark. In my opinion its not got a patch on Rayman Legends.

 

In regards to my particular review it may seem more negative in tone and then a decent score, but its more because the positives (fun to play etc) are expected from a Mario title at this point. Nintendo know what they're doing, and know how to do it well, but I'm personally just bored of it now. This could have been a great new game, but instead its just another Mario game. Which is by no means a bad thing, but certainly not worthy of universal praise in my opinion.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Ashley

[Ronnie]

 

Wow amazing reviews! Well apart from Ashley's predictably joyless one.

 

I especially love that quote from EDGE.

[Ashley]

Wow amazing reviews! Well apart from Ashley's predictably joyless one.

 

I especially love that quote from EDGE.

 

[liger05]

If I'm honest, I'd drop review scores if it were not for aggregating sites and what not that help push business. It's a dirty part of the business, but it is what it is.

 

I did take a lot of time coming to that score, and my gut led me to a 7 initially, but after going through the individual scores (gameplay, sound etc) and giving them a 4 it seemed like it was an 8 overall.

 

Ultimately my opinions could be summed up with "its fine, not great but fine. It's the best we can expect from the Wii U and Nintendo at the moment tbf. Neither groundbreaking or spectacular, but a decent title amongst the rough"

 

I think that's why it's getting high scores, because its in a very shallow pool. If this were a multiplatform title I think scores would be around the 7 mark. In my opinion its not got a patch on Rayman Legends.

 

In regards to my particular review it may seem more negative in tone and then a decent score, but its more because the positives (fun to play etc) are expected from a Mario title at this point. Nintendo know what they're doing, and know how to do it well, but I'm personally just bored of it now. This could have been a great new game, but instead its just another Mario game. Which is by no means a bad thing, but certainly not worthy of universal praise in my opinion.

 

I like Rayman titles but they come nowhere close to Mario titles when it comes to level design level after level.

[Ashley]

I find Rayman more challenging. Mario gets difficult, but it feels more difficult for the same of it rather than being a challenge.

 

But I fear we may get sidetracked. Might start a thread in general gaming about this tomorrow when I'm not on my tablet.

[Wii]

Super Mario 3D World UK Advert

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=hnNkUJcgfzU

 

I think it's decent, could be better but it is better than the U.S. ad. Now let's see it on TV. It will and I've no doubt it'll be the first game ad since Pikmin 3 to feature on mainstream TV, at least as far as I've seen, not just kids channels.

[Kav]

Reading all the different reviews makes me think @Ashley has lost his soul. :p

[Helmsly]

Super Mario 3D World UK Advert

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=hnNkUJcgfzU

 

I think it's decent, could be better but it is better than the U.S. ad. Now let's see it on TV. It will and I've no doubt it'll be the first game ad since Pikmin 3 to feature on mainstream TV, at least as far as I've seen, not just kids channels.

 

I really like that they went with non-stop gameplay for the whole commercial instead of having something like a staged family in a living room playing it, which is what I had assumed they would do as a way to show the multiplayer.

[Zechs Merquise]

The game looks amazing, the review scores are amazing. However rather predictably this has upset a couple of people in this thread - no surprises which ones!

 

As for the N-E review score, it was predictably lower than the rest. Personally I thought Ahley's review seemed rather bitter and read completely differently to other reviews. This however doesn't surprise me as I knew it was coming.

 

I find N-E's reviews to be all over the place. When Wind Waker and SM3DW score 8, lower than all the big sites and over a point beneath the average score on aggregator sites, but Sonic Lost World scores 9, well above most sites many of whom gave it as low as 4 citing it being broken in places, I personally think it's all a bit odd.

 

It is however the reviews and their scores are the opinion of the author - which is fine. But I do feel (and have stated this before) that there is a certain undercurrent on N-E where liking Nintendo is almost frowned upon.

[Daft]

C'mon man give the game some props. Its getting great scores from a wide number of reviewers and unless there is some underhand agreement in place its fair to say the game has impressed the gaming media. Of course each to there own and you may feel different but I can only go with what I read and the scores seems well deserved.

 

Yeah, and I've actually played it to competion. I really don't understand why everyone needs it to recieve unanimous praise. I even said it was a great game. Why isn't that good enough? It is a great game, but I very much doubt it's something I'll remember playing this time next year.

 

I feel certain games get a free pass or unfairly criticized based on preconceptions. If Mario wasn't slapped on this I don't doubt the scores would be slightly less than perfect. But who cares about the difference between great and orgasmic, just enjoy the thing.

[Sheikah]

Well if NE's scores caused you even a moment's confusion/upset then all the better. They're entitled to their reviews and non perfect scores makes their reviews all the more credible in my opinion.

 

You're also doing what you often do - fixating far too much on scores, which should be secondary to the review.

[Zechs Merquise]

Yeah, and I've actually played it to competion. I really don't understand why everyone needs it to recieve unanimous praise. I even said it was a great game. Why isn't that good enough? It is a great game, but I very much doubt it's something I'll remember playing this time next year.

 

I feel certain games get a free pass or unfairly criticized based on preconceptions. If Mario wasn't slapped on this I don't doubt the scores would be slightly less than perfect. But who cares about the difference between great and orgasmic, just enjoy the thing.

 

Don't worry, you won't have to remember playing it. Soon you can wash away the mundane Mario with superb titles like Killzone 4 and Knack - next gen all the way. Oh...

 

But to seriously address your point, I don't think Nintendo get free passes from the press. The press has savaged Nintendo in many respects and poured scorn on certain titles they have focused on. I think if one thing can be seen from these reviews (excluding obviously the one you influenced ) is that people love Nintendo when Nintendo do what the do best: creating classic games - Pikmin 3, Wind Waker HD and Mario prove this.

 

What people don't like is Nintendo's approach with the gamepad, reliance on mini-game collections and lack of focus with the system as a whole.

 

I think high review scores for Mario are wonderful, mainly because they're coming from the same people who were critical of the whole ethos and design of the Wii U. It's almost like the gaming press are saying 'Nintendo - you got it wrong with the gamepad, you got it wrong with the focus of the Wii U but damn, when you go back to what you're good at - creating amazing gaming experiences - you're still the best'.

[Rummy]

Well that definition describes me also, so your point is flawed.

 

Nice to see your comprehension of my entire point was equally flawed. My post predicted that, though.

 

I find it quite interesting that N-E, a specialist Nintendo site, has actually marked both Zelda and Mario lower than the consensus from the mainstream press. Maybe both me and Ashley were looking for something different - I don't think either of us thought that either Mario or Zelda weren't great games that are worth buying - but our praise wasn't quite as universal.

 

What I conclude from this, is really, I'm not really going to take any more notice to review scores. It's the content of a review (and the game itself) that matters, not a number that's assigned to it. Zelda was one of my favourite games this year, but that didn't stop me having criticisms of it.

 

TLDR Review scores receive too much attention, people should read more, recent Nintendo games are great despite some flaws,

 

I don't know if it's because you're looking for something different or see it more impartially/as what it is. Would the same game be doing so well in reviews if it wasn't slathered in Mario? If it wasn't for a console that isn't doing too well in the grand scheme of things? I appreciate N-Europe most for the general balance of its members and writers.

 

I do, however, like to have numbers on the end of my reviews. N-Europe's good there for its 5-tier breakdown of what I consider important aspects, though.

 

Everyone should read the reviews and not just the number. I dont know why people look at a number and then just go with that.

 

Look at both! I'll admit for some N-E reviews I often just skip down to the bottom for the summary - again the 5 score breakdown is helpful, along with the summary pros and cons.

[Serebii]

Everyone should read the reviews and not just the number. I dont know why people look at a number and then just go with that.

 

It's because scores are meant to be the indicator of the overall conclusion. That's the original intent of them and why people go crazy over them.

 

Don't worry, you won't have to remember playing it. Soon you can wash away the mundane Mario with superb titles like Killzone 4 and Knack - next gen all the way. Oh...

 

But to seriously address your point, I don't think Nintendo get free passes from the press. The press has savaged Nintendo in many respects and poured scorn on certain titles they have focused on. I think if one thing can be seen from these reviews (excluding obviously the one you influenced ) is that people love Nintendo when Nintendo do what the do best: creating classic games - Pikmin 3, Wind Waker HD and Mario prove this.

 

If anything, I'd say Nintendo games don't get a free pass but are in fact held to a higher standard that they can seldom meet.

 

Look at Pikmin...as said before, rather than just rating it on what it is, people were reviewing it and marking it based on how it "doesn't justify the Wii U". Even some Super Mario 3D World reviews are guilty of this. You never get Sony or MS games rated to that standard, yet Nintendo games do. Other company's games can be refinements and be marked high and loved, but in the eyes of many, Nintendo's games have to be revolutionary or Nintendo has failed/lost it.

 

I was actually expecting the worst from the reviews of this for the reason that the internet is so completely anti-Nintendo of late.

 

It is however the reviews and their scores are the opinion of the author - which is fine. But I do feel (and have stated this before) that there is a certain undercurrent on N-E where liking Nintendo is almost frowned upon.

 

Considering certain people go on at me when I'm being positive about Nintendo, I agree.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Serebii

[Rummy]

It is however the reviews and their scores are the opinion of the author - which is fine. But I do feel (and have stated this before) that there is a certain undercurrent on N-E where liking Nintendo is almost frowned upon.

 

I think you're right. Nobody on a site whose very own name is derived from Nintendo probably likes them much at all.

 

Yeah, and I've actually played it to competion. I really don't understand why everyone needs it to recieve unanimous praise. I even said it was a great game. Why isn't that good enough? It is a great game, but I very much doubt it's something I'll remember playing this time next year.

 

I feel certain games get a free pass or unfairly criticized based on preconceptions. If Mario wasn't slapped on this I don't doubt the scores would be slightly less than perfect. But who cares about the difference between great and orgasmic, just enjoy the thing.

 

This is the kind of opinion I appreciate; and essentially my greatest worry with this game for me. Yeah sure, it'll be good enough - but will it blow my mind and make me think how awesome it was later when I'm looking back on the great games I've played? Probably not.

[Ronnie]

I think Ashley put far too much time and effort into discussing whether the game was really 2D or really 3D. As if the fact that it wasn't a 'true 3D' game, whatever that is, was a huge black mark. IMO, why care about such pointless distinctions, just take the game for what it is.

[-Dem0-]

On N-E reviews I really wouldn't criticize the reviewers on this website. They take the time to play the game to completion, and put a hell of a lot of care into the reviews. You can't say the same for many other websites out there.

 

If anything, I'd say Nintendo games don't get a free pass but are in fact held to a higher standard that they can seldom meet.

 

It's true. A lot of reviews often use Nintendo's past glories as a yardstick for their new releases but I think that's more due to the fact that Nintendo has a very long history of producing top-quality software on a consistent basis.

 

Nintendo has set the bar so high with many genre-defining titles that it feels like some reviewers look at surpassing the previous games in the series as challenge enough let alone comparing it to what's on the market already.

Edited November 20, 2013 by -Dem0-

[Sheikah]

Don't worry, you won't have to remember playing it. Soon you can wash away the mundane Mario with superb titles like Killzone 4 and Knack - next gen all the way. Oh...

 

 

Or the heavily hinted Fallout 4? Which will skull fuck every Wii U title into submission when/if it releases.

 

Just sayin'.

[liger05]

Looking online it seems there seems to be people who were hoping this game was going to review bad just so they could stick the boot into Nintendo again.

 

Nintendo have made some stupid mistakes in recent times but it looks like they got the right and nailed it. The amount of salt over this game knocking out of the ball park is quite sad.

[Zechs Merquise]

Or the heavily hinted Fallout 4? Which will skull fuck every Wii U title into submission when/if it releases.

 

Just sayin'.

 

Not really exactly comparative, as it will be a multi-platform title that will also be available on PC. What's more, if anyone was that into Fallout they would get it on PC, as it will look better and the modding community do amazing things with Fallout.

 

Also, whilst Fallout 3 is one of my all time favourite games, it's certainly no better than Mario Galaxy 2, Ocarina of Time or many other classic games that have appeared on Nintendo systems.

 

Still, I am enjoying the salty tears of those who really were hoping that SM3DW would be a critical flop!

[Sheikah]

I think the only people who 'prayed it would flop' are the people in your mind, tbh.

 

If Fallout is a PS4 game, which I don't doubt, then it will run as well as a good but more expensive PC, with the added social functions PS4 brings.

[Serebii]

I think the only people who 'prayed it would flop' are the people in your mind, tbh.

 

If Fallout is a PS4 game, which I don't doubt, then it will run as well as a good but more expensive PC, with the added social functions PS4 brings.

You clearly don't frequent NeoGAF :p

[Daft]

This is the kind of opinion I appreciate; and essentially my greatest worry with this game for me. Yeah sure, it'll be good enough - but will it blow my mind and make me think how awesome it was later when I'm looking back on the great games I've played? Probably not.

 

But it may do. In my mind it's been massively overshadowed by Rayman Legends. Not really sure why people are being tetchy and/or defensive, though. It's a great game. I've said that more than three times now.

 

It's unsurprising that on this board I have to defend my own opinion about a game that I've actually played, against people who have only read reviews and seen videos. Especially when I've said it's a great fucking game. It's just not perfect.

 

You want a few of my reasons?

• This doesn't even need to be a Wii U game. It could be done on the 3DS. And by that I mean where is this 'Wii U's potential' I keep hearing about? (This isn't necessarily a knock at the game - I can take it or leave it but I can't help but feel if it had used the Wii U in some amazing way I wouldn't have heard the end of how amazing that feature was. Swings and roundabouts.)
  
• The camera in multiplayer, is more often than it should be, infuriating.
  
• The levels feel really short at times.
  
• The boss fights are repetitive. Seriously. Hit the boss three times. Then watch that boss pop up with the slightest of changes as you play through the game.
  
• This is literally a Mario World game with a Z-axis added - which, while making it look pretty, makes the game a hell of a lot easier. (tl;dr - Plus points for aesthetics, negative points for challenge)
  
• If you fail a level enough times (and by 'enough', the number seems to vary to the point where I think dying a second time made this happen) you get an automatic power-up that makes you invincible. Common, offer an 'easy' mode that incorporates this or something.
  
• When it tries to mix things up (like that top-down Zelda-perspective level and the on-rails-camera bit with Bowser) it doesn't quite pull it off - unlike Rayman which break dances through multiple game-types with utter finesse.
  

 

And I still think it's a great game.

 

You (certain) people...are exhausting.