# This just proves how biased reviewers are today



## Tyeforce (Feb 20, 2010)

http://www.zeldadungeon.net/2010/02/spirit-tracks-worst-zelda-to-date/

Bull*censored.2.0*.


----------



## [Nook] (Feb 20, 2010)

Someone who only plays FPSs rated these games.


----------



## Gnome (Feb 20, 2010)

nook said:
			
		

> Someone who only plays FPSs rated these games.


wat. It's on a Zelda website.


----------



## Shadow Jolteon (Feb 20, 2010)

Gnome said:
			
		

> nook said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The ratings come from GameRankings.com, it says. =P


----------



## Erica (Feb 20, 2010)

Wtf. .____.


----------



## Gnome (Feb 20, 2010)

Shadow Jolteon said:
			
		

> Gnome said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Still that's an overall game rating site probably. So nook's wrong, plus how would he even know his preference of game. (Assuming it's a he)


----------



## Rawburt (Feb 20, 2010)

I don't see what the problem is honestly, it's still an excellent score.


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 20, 2010)

Rawburt said:
			
		

> I don't see what the problem is honestly, it's still an excellent score.


But _every_ other Zelda game has a better score than Spirit Tracks. That's bull. Spirit Tracks was pretty much unanimously better than Phantom Hourglass, yet the reviewers gave Spirit Tracks a lower score! It just shows that reviewers are getting more and more biased. You know that something's not right when New Super Mario Bros. for DS gets a better score than New Super Mario Bros. Wii. It's like reviewers are completely ignoring their past scores.


----------



## Neko Yuki Pyrozanryu (Feb 20, 2010)

I lol'd and i havent opened the link


----------



## Ciaran (Feb 20, 2010)

It's because spirit tracks was really similar to the other zelda games, and the train was *censored.2.0*...


And this proves nothing about bias...


----------



## Trundle (Feb 20, 2010)

OoT, TP, and WW, are clearly the best three anyway. The rest.. Mehh.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 20, 2010)

I agree with that rating. Actually, In all honesty, it should have been lower, but It's a Zelda game and god forbid someone give a Zelda game a low rating.


----------



## //RUN.exe (Feb 20, 2010)

maybe they genuinely liked it less than phantom hourglass and every other zelda game

GASP


----------



## Jas0n (Feb 20, 2010)

Neo-Griever said:
			
		

> I agree with that rating. Actually, In all honesty, it should have been lower, but It's a Zelda game and god forbid someone give a Zelda game a low rating.


This.


----------



## «Jack» (Feb 20, 2010)

Guess what.
PEOPLE HAVE THEIR OWN OPINIONS.


----------



## Gnome (Feb 20, 2010)

Jak said:
			
		

> Guess what.
> PEOPLE HAVE THEIR OWN OPINIONS.


Really? NO WAI.


----------



## daveyp1997 (Feb 20, 2010)

zelda pwnz...........................OoT is epic


----------



## «Jack» (Feb 20, 2010)

Gnome said:
			
		

> Jak said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I THOUGHT EVERYONE HAD TO AGREE WITH ME.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 20, 2010)

I like Zelda games a lot, but most of them are overrated. I can't stand when they get like a 10/10 for their stories. I mean, come one. "Oh no!, the princess is kidnapped, I need to save her!"  How old does that get. 

But, Zelda games are still fun, and I love them a lot.


----------



## Gnome (Feb 20, 2010)

Neo-Griever said:
			
		

> I like Zelda games a lot, but most of them are overrated. I can't stand when they get like a 10/10 for their stories. I mean, come one. "Oh no!, the princess is kidnapped, I need to save her!"  How old does that get.
> 
> But, Zelda games are still fun, and I love them a lot.


INB4ZELDANERDS.

I'm calling that now.


----------



## -Aaron (Feb 20, 2010)

So..you're assuming reviewers are biased because you don't like the score that they give your "OMG BEST GAME OF ALL TIME" game?


----------



## John102 (Feb 20, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> Rawburt said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe because it's basically a repeat game and they've already seen most of the stuff before so it doesn't wow them as much...


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 20, 2010)

John102 said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sadly, that's how most Nintendo games are nowadays. I miss the glory days of Nintendo when they had fresh, new ideas.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 20, 2010)

Mrmr said:
			
		

> OoT, TP, and WW, are clearly the best three anyway. The rest.. Mehh.


Yeah, I agree. Those are my top favorite. I could play those all day.


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 20, 2010)

TravisTouchdown said:
			
		

> So..you're assuming reviewers are biased because you don't like the score that they give your "OMG BEST GAME OF ALL TIME" game?


Um...no? I'm saying that reviewers are contradicting themselves when they give a game's sequel that's almost unanimously accepted as the better game a lower score than its prequel, in this case Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks. The same can be said about New Super Mario Bros. and New Super Mario Bros. Wii, and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games. The sequels are clearly improved upon the originals, yet reviewers ignore their past scores and give the games and even lower score! I could care less what score games get, I'm just pointing out the direction in which reviewers are going today...


----------



## Gnome (Feb 20, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> TravisTouchdown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How is that biased though?


----------



## NGT (Feb 20, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> TravisTouchdown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Or, It could be that games are getting worse now days.


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 20, 2010)

John102 said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Have you even _played_ Spirit Tracks? It doesn't matter if it has similar elements to a past game. A review should be based solely on _that_ game, not other games in the series. Spirit Tracks has many improvements upon Phantom Hourglass, so there's no way it should get a lower score.


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 20, 2010)

Gnome said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Biased towards certain games. It's the only reason why they would give games that are clearly improved upon their prequels a lower score.


----------



## NGT (Feb 20, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> John102 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, but it's part of a game series, and for a series to work, each game needs to offer something new and fresh, If you have the same old formula every time, it get's old fast. So what if ST has a few new things. Overall, it's too much like the previous games.


----------



## OJ. (Feb 20, 2010)

What?

.__.


----------



## m12 (Feb 20, 2010)

The main reason that I don't look at reviews has to do with the fact that their opinions may not reflect my own. I decide which game is suitable to my interests based off of information on the game, demonstrations, and overall familiarity in controls and plot.

In short, I don't look at reviews because they are exactly what they seem; Biased.

Spirit Tracks is a very enjoyable game, though many may disagree. That's the fact of life.


----------



## Mr. L (Feb 20, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> Rawburt said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OM*G 0_0


----------



## Rawburt (Feb 20, 2010)

malesretmit12 said:
			
		

> The main reason that I don't look at reviews has to do with the fact that their opinions may not reflect my own. I decide which game is suitable to my interests based off of information on the game, demonstrations, and overall familiarity in controls and plot.
> 
> In short, I don't look at reviews because they are exactly what they seem; Biased.
> 
> Spirit Tracks is a very enjoyable game, though many may disagree. That's the fact of life.


I find reviews to be somewhat helpful to at least give you an idea what to expect in a game. The final score doesn't matter as much as the article that accompanies it, as long as you get the pros and the cons then i think it's a pretty helpful review.


----------



## m12 (Feb 20, 2010)

Rawburt said:
			
		

> malesretmit12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would agree with you; However, pros and cons may differ from one person to another. Of course, if you aren't familiar with a certain genre or series, reviews may prove beneficial.


----------



## NGT (Feb 20, 2010)

Game quality is on the decline, get over it.


----------



## Mr. L (Feb 20, 2010)

NGT said:
			
		

> Game quality is on the decline, get over it.


you're wrong and a troll get over it.


----------



## Ciaran (Feb 20, 2010)

But Tye, when you've already played so many similar games, it gets kinda boring, and
therefor is less fun, hence the lower scores...

(and the frame rate while you were driving the train was horrible)


----------



## Garrett x50 cal (Feb 20, 2010)

Are you crying over an 86% score what the *censored.3.0* is wrong with you.


----------



## NGT (Feb 20, 2010)

Mr.L said:
			
		

> NGT said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For the last time, I'm NOT a troll. My first account was banned because Miranda said I was posting profanity (which I really wasn't, she must have been looking at the wrong stuff.) When I made my second account I PM'd Miranda about it and she didn't ban me, which means she obviously didn't care. I have no idea why my 2nd account got banned by Comatose. Obviously he didn't see my PM with Miranda.

I don't know why people are having such a fit over me. There are several real trolls on right now. Have you seen the Sarah person?


----------



## Thunder (Feb 20, 2010)

NGT said:
			
		

> Mr.L said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Didn't care, or isn't on? =|


----------



## Garrett x50 cal (Feb 20, 2010)

Master Crash said:
			
		

> NGT said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who is he?


----------



## NGT (Feb 20, 2010)

No, Miranda responded to my PM


----------



## Pear (Feb 20, 2010)

Err, yeah. That happens. As time goes on, expectations for games increase. If you don't improve by an amount that's substantial enough, you'll do worse with reviews. 

For instance, the original AC got a 9/10. ACCF got a 6.5/10, even though everyone thinks it's the better game.


----------



## Thunder (Feb 20, 2010)

SSgt. Garrett said:
			
		

> Master Crash said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pretty sure it's Tyler.


----------



## Shadow Jolteon (Feb 20, 2010)

SSgt. Garrett said:
			
		

> Are you crying over an 86% score what the *censored.3.0* is wrong with you.


The point I think he's making isn't that the score is too low, but that they said the games are better than their predecessors, and still gave them lower scores. If they thought they were better than the previous games, then why give them a lower score? =p

It's especially true for Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games and Mario & Sonic at Thelympic Winter Games, a popular site's review of the sequel said it was far improved on the original (which it definitely was, the original got old fast), and said it was more enjoyable, among other things, but they still gave it a much lower score than the original.

It really just doesn't make sense. XD Of course, reviews are almost always just someone's opinion of something, so they really don't matter, unless you find yourself generally agreeing with that particular reviewer. I prefer to go by what games look good to me, and I've only been disappointed a couple times. =p


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 20, 2010)

Ciaran said:
			
		

> But Tye, when you've already played so many similar games, it gets kinda boring, and
> therefor is less fun, hence the lower scores...
> 
> (and the frame rate while you were driving the train was horrible)


I found Spirit Tracks to be very unique from Phantom Hourglass. Of course it's going to be somewhat similar, because they use the same engine. But they definitely have their differences, and I found Spirit Tracks to be the more enjoyable game, and it's clear that it has many improvements upon Phantom Hourglass.


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 20, 2010)

SSgt. Garrett said:
			
		

> Are you crying over an 86% score what the *censored.3.0* is wrong with you.


You're missing the point. >_>

I could care less what the score is. Yes, 86% is a good score, I get that. The problem is that Spirit Tracks got a _lower_ score than every other Zelda game, even Phantom Hourglass, despite it having clear improvements upon it.

EDIT: What Andrew said, lol.


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 20, 2010)

Pear said:
			
		

> Err, yeah. That happens. As time goes on, expectations for games increase. If you don't improve by an amount that's substantial enough, you'll do worse with reviews.
> 
> For instance, the original AC got a 9/10. ACCF got a 6.5/10, even though everyone thinks it's the better game.


That's just wrong, though. It's like how a lot of reviewers give Wii games lower scores on graphics because "they're not as good as 360/PS3 graphics". That reason is invalid, because the Wii isn't an HD console! It _can't_ put out graphics as high as the 360 and PS3. Comparing it to HD graphics isn't fair, and neither is giving a game a lower score just because it's similar to a previous game.


----------



## NGT (Feb 20, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> Pear said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, but it _should_ have been an HD console. There is no reason for Nintendo to be so behind in technology.


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 20, 2010)

NGT said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nintendo puts gameplay over graphics. There's nothing wrong with that. Nintendo is about fun, not looks. I can have much more fun with a simple game like Wii Sports Resort than I can with any old HD game. Graphics aren't as important as gameplay. Nintendo knows this, and they have a working formula, so why should they change? Their next console will be HD, and that's because HD is becoming the standard, but at the time of the Wii's development, HD wasn't as standard as it is today.


----------



## NGT (Feb 20, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> NGT said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Xbox and PS3 games are just as fun, if not more fun, than Wii games.


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 20, 2010)

NGT said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That depends on your preference. Personally, I find Wii games to be much more fun. I'd rather swing a Wii Remote then just press buttons any day.


----------



## NGT (Feb 20, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> NGT said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you don't like gamecube, n64, nes, or snes?


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 20, 2010)

NGT said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, I do, but I enjoy playing Wii games much more. Motion technology wasn't around in games back then like it is today.


----------



## NGT (Feb 20, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> NGT said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What about the Eye toy? It was out before the wii.


----------



## Garrett x50 cal (Feb 20, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> SSgt. Garrett said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Its the job of the reviewer to rate it how he/she feels about it not everybody is going to agree 86% is fine its not a big deal its not like everyone thinks its the worst game of all time.


----------



## NGT (Feb 20, 2010)

All zelda games are pretty much the same. It's the same old crap ever time. Collect 3 things, something bad happens, go collect 7 or 8 more things, kill last boss. They really need to add new stuff in to keep the series fresh.

But i still like it because its fun


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 20, 2010)

NGT said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There's a reason why the Eye Toy failed and the Wii succeeded. It was innovative, yes, but it was lacking.


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 20, 2010)

SSgt. Garrett said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I already said that it's not the 86% that's the problem. >_> And, yes, reviews are based on the reviewers' opinions, but a lot of the time reviewers don't take into account that other people have different opinions, and they state their opinions as fact.


----------



## NGT (Feb 20, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> SSgt. Garrett said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Kind of like you're doing right now.....


----------



## Ciaran (Feb 20, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> SSgt. Garrett said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, they use fact to back up their opinions...

There's always a problem when you don't agree with someone, Tye...


----------



## «Jack» (Feb 20, 2010)

NGT said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


+1
Seriously Tye, stop being such a hypocrite. You're going all "THEY SHOULD LISTEN TO OTHER'S OPINIONS" and then you go on to ignore all that we say, simply because it doesn't fit into your argument.


----------



## NGT (Feb 20, 2010)

Do I smell something burning?


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 20, 2010)

NGT said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not stating my opinions as fact. >_>


----------



## NGT (Feb 20, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> NGT said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I lol'd so hard.


----------



## Mr. L (Feb 20, 2010)

NGT said:
			
		

> Mr.L said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's YOU,you're Sarah.


----------



## The Sign Painter (Feb 20, 2010)

NGT said:
			
		

> Do I smell something burning?


That is rather odd, are we the only ones who smell it?


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 20, 2010)

Ciaran said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, they use opinions. Whether you enjoy a game or not is your opinion, but reviewers don't take that into account. They think that if they don't have fun with the game, then no one can. Reviewers need to learn that everyone has different preferences. >_>

And I know you just hate me, you can stop saying it already.


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 20, 2010)

NGT said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Show me when I stated my opinion as fact, then.


----------



## Ciaran (Feb 20, 2010)

Tye, a review IS an opinion...

You need to grow up...


----------



## NGT (Feb 20, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> NGT said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not just this topic


----------



## NGT (Feb 20, 2010)

Ciaran said:
			
		

> Tye, a review IS an opinion...
> 
> You need to grow up...


Tye....growing up? lol that's never going to happen.


----------



## ATWA (Feb 20, 2010)

oh no someone has an opinion, must be terrible.

i didn't the article by the way


----------



## //RUN.exe (Feb 20, 2010)

ATWA said:
			
		

> oh no someone has an opinion, must be terrible.
> 
> i didn't the article by the way


you didn't the article but i accidentally the whole article


----------



## Lisathegreat! (Feb 20, 2010)

Mr.L said:
			
		

> NGT said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's Griever. Not Sarah.


----------



## Lisathegreat! (Feb 20, 2010)

Ciaran said:
			
		

> Tye, a review IS an opinion...
> 
> You need to grow up...


Tye, knows that. He never said his opinion was a fact.


----------



## beehdaubs (Feb 20, 2010)

All big name reviewers are biased.  Get over it.


----------



## VantagE (Feb 21, 2010)

Um who cares?


----------



## NGT (Feb 21, 2010)

VantagE said:
			
		

> Um who cares?


Tyeforce


----------



## VantagE (Feb 21, 2010)

NGT said:
			
		

> VantagE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*ahem* letmesaythisagain... who cares? xD


----------



## NGT (Feb 21, 2010)

VantagE said:
			
		

> NGT said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Last time i checked, Tyeforce cared.


----------



## VantagE (Feb 21, 2010)

NGT said:
			
		

> VantagE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Other then him...


----------



## NGT (Feb 21, 2010)

VantagE said:
			
		

> NGT said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No one, because everyone else on this site is mature =)


----------



## VantagE (Feb 21, 2010)

NGT said:
			
		

> VantagE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Theeeereee ya go thats what I was looking for haha. xD


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 21, 2010)

NGT said:
			
		

> VantagE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And this is coming from a troll who was bumping all the threads that I was viewing. Yeah, I saw what you were doing. Rofl.


----------



## Bacon Boy (Feb 21, 2010)

Quite honestly, I thought Spirit tracks was a pretty good game. It served its purpose for me - road trip game. Short, but it was worth its money; plus all of the sidequests and such made it an interesting game. 

Phantom Hourglass on the other hand was annoying and odd because 1) If the Ghost Ship was in Link's world the entire time, how come you never saw tetra's ship? 2) The Temple of the Ocean King reset every time you went into it.


----------



## Megamannt125 (Feb 21, 2010)

Unacceptable. This is truly a disgrace to the Zelda community to say ST is worse than PH. I slap my shoe at them.


----------



## ATWA (Feb 24, 2010)

//RUN.exe said:
			
		

> ATWA said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i the article


----------



## Entei Slider (Feb 24, 2010)

NGT said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lol'd


----------



## Yetiman15 (Feb 24, 2010)

I like how they take note of rating the Gamecube TP but not the Wii Version...


----------



## NGT (Feb 24, 2010)

Yetiman15 said:
			
		

> I like how they take note of rating the Gamecube TP but not the Wii Version...


Gamecube TP is the true version. The Wii one is just a port. That's why it has bad graphics on the wii.


----------



## Yetiman15 (Feb 24, 2010)

NGT said:
			
		

> Yetiman15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm just saying that they're different.

I personally think that the wii version is better thanks to the motion controls of the hookshot, bow, and other items. So lets say I think that it diserves two more points which (I believe) would make it be better than Ocaraina of time (Gasp!). 

I want to know though... I didn't take the time to read so I'm not sure. But whether or not these are recent reviews and scores or the actual scores these received during their time. I love The original and ALTTP but I'll be completely honest in that I'd much rather play WW, ST, or even MC over them.


----------



## -Aaron (Feb 24, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> TravisTouchdown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, you're assuming that because it's a sequel, it deserves a higher score?


----------



## Yetiman15 (Feb 24, 2010)

NGT said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Alright I know I'm going to be hated for this but to counter this statement I have to bring up pokemon.

What do the sequels after these games add to the series that weren't in the one before it? I haven't played any Pokemon's outside of Fire Red and Leaf Green which are 1st generation, but I know for a fact that there isn't a lot other than more pokemon, a new world to explore, and wi-fi (which I understand makes the game great <--- Only wi-fi though in my opinion)

Yet each one constantly gets either a higher rating or around the one before it. And the thing is reviewers know this as they mention it in their review going something like this "Nintendo once again sticks to their old formula" almost mocking it. 

I understand what Tye's trying to say. I liked Spirit Tracks more than Phantom Hourglass too. For my own reasons though I mean hell I really just prefer Trains over boats


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 25, 2010)

TravisTouchdown said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No. It doesn't deserve a better score just because it's a sequel. There are plenty of sequels that don't live up to their prequels. However, when you have a sequel like Spirit Tracks that is pretty much unanimously called the better game, it should obviously have a better score. >_>


----------



## Yetiman15 (Feb 25, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> TravisTouchdown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But just because you think it's unanimously better doesn't mean it is. You know?


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 25, 2010)

Yetiman15 said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you even know what the word "unanimous" means? One person can't think that it's "unanimously" better, because in order for something to be unanimous, a _group_ of people have to all agree the same. I'm not speaking for myself here, I'm saying that almost _everyone_ agrees that Spirit Tracks is better than Phantom Hourglass, so it's almost unanimous. Don't take my word for it, ask almost anyone. Spirit Tracks took what Phantom Hourglass had and improved on it; it's better, and that's pretty much a fact. Of course, someone can still prefer Phantom Hourglass over Spirit Tracks, but because the games use the same engine yet Spirit Tracks added and fixed a lot of things, it's clearly the better game. The only reason why that can be said is because the games are so similar. It's not like you're comparing old Sonic games to new Sonic games; there's a very big difference in gameplay and everything there. Here, that's not the case. It's like saying Wii Fit is better than Wii Fit Plus, when Wii Fit Plus is the exact same game as Wii Fit, except with added game modes and features. Obviously, Spirit Tracks isn't the exact same game as Phantom Hourglass with added features, but they're still very similar. Kinda like New Super Mario Bros. and New Super Mario Bros. Wii. Almost anyone will tell you that New Super Mario Bros. Wii was by far the better game, because it took what New Super Mario Bros. had an heavily expanded on it, while still being a similar game.


----------



## Kyle (Feb 25, 2010)

...
It's only 2%, quit crying little baby man.


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 25, 2010)

Solgineer said:
			
		

> ...
> It's only 2%, quit crying little baby man.


It's not the percentage that matters. It's the fact that they gave a sequel that was better than its prequel a better score. >_>


----------



## Kyle (Feb 25, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> Solgineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe to _you_.
One of the freedoms in America is freedom of speech, and along with that is opinion. no More Heroes (1) had reviews which made it look like crap average (just remembered what the NMH scores were, the game was better than that), but was successful (allowing a sequel, which I sadly have yet to play). Reviews aren't true sometimes.


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 25, 2010)

Solgineer said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know that they're not true... That's the whole purpose of this thread. =p


----------



## Kyle (Feb 25, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> Solgineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeh well, it happens.
It happens every now and then, but unless you can start a big time website with your own reviews and such, not much can be done.


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 25, 2010)

Solgineer said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


<small>Which is exactly what Andrew and I plan on doing.
</small>
Hehe.


----------



## Yetiman15 (Feb 25, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> Yetiman15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


... A good majority of the posts on this topic say the game's too similar to PH.


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 25, 2010)

Yetiman15 said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, it says it's similar, but better. >_> Being similar to another game isn't a bad thing. Super Mario Galaxy 2 is going to be very similar to Super Mario Galaxy, but that by no means means it's going to be bad. It's already looking to be much better than the first one, and the first one was already amazing.


> Here's what I learned from my multiple hands-on sessions with Super Mario Galaxy 2...
> 
> 1. I think this game may actually look better than the original Galaxy (visuals)
> 2. Having Yoshi in a Galaxy setting is so much fun that it seems criminal
> ...


More of the same isn't necessarily a bad thing. >_>


----------



## Rawburt (Feb 25, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> Solgineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So basically, the entire point of this thread is you saying all review sites suck and yours will be awesome.


----------



## Yetiman15 (Feb 25, 2010)

Why bring up a game that hasn't come out yet? 
What are we even arguing over? I'm just saying that for it to be unanimous EVERYONE would have to be in complete agreement. You and I both like it more than PH but there are reviewers out there and other people on there (some of which are posting on this thread) that believe it just isn't as good.
 I don't know why it wouldn't be, but I'm not going to argue it.


----------



## Mr. L (Feb 25, 2010)

Rawburt said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i lol'd


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 25, 2010)

Rawburt said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Um...no? I didn't even plan to say anything about our reviews. =p But we won't be as biased as most of the reviewers out there. (No, it won't be just fanboy rants. >_>)


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 25, 2010)

Yetiman15 said:
			
		

> Why bring up a game that hasn't come out yet?
> What are we even arguing over? I'm just saying that for it to be unanimous EVERYONE would have to be in complete agreement. You and I both like it more than PH but there are reviewers out there and other people on there (some of which are posting on this thread) that believe it just isn't as good.
> I don't know why it wouldn't be, but I'm not going to argue it.


That's why I made sure I said "pretty much" and "almost" unanimous, not just "unanimous". >_>


----------



## Trent the Paladin (Feb 25, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> Rawburt said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It'll be fanboy rants.

At least, yours will be. Andrew maybe not. Unless you plan on "hiring" other people to help review things.


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 25, 2010)

Tom said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ugh. Seriously? You don't think that I can put my fanboyness behind for a review? We haven't even started yet, so don't act like you can predict the future. >_>

Besides, I'm not the kind of fanboy who likes games just because they're a fanboy. I'm a fanboy _because I like the games_. Not the reverse.

And Andrew is just as much of a fanboy as I am. He's just better at not posting stupid things. =p


----------



## Yetiman15 (Feb 25, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> Yetiman15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And that's why it got a lower score from a different source because it isn't unanimous as you just said. It's not that you're wrong in saying that the game should be considered better, but you have to realize that they aren't wrong in what they say either, there's no bias it's just there opinion.


----------



## -Aaron (Feb 25, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> Tom said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But you said so yourself before that you only play SEGA and Nintendo, and you hate gore-fests. So now, you're saying that your reviews will be un-biased? The way I see it, you'll end up reviewing only the games  you like and end up giving them a better score.


----------



## The Sign Painter (Feb 25, 2010)

TravisTouchdown said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tye's review of [Insert non-violent, family friendly party game with Mario or Sonic characters playable here]
[Insert non-violent, family friendly party game with Mario or Sonic characters playable here] is truly a great game. [Insert non-violent, family friendly party game with Mario or Sonic characters playable here] is the best thing I have ever played in my life. It has all my favorite characters, and some waggle!

I rate it 11/10!


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 25, 2010)

Yetiman15 said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I haven't seen a single review that said that Phantom Hourglass was better. The reviewers just ignore their previous scores when scoring sequels, and they end up being hypocritical by saying that the sequel is better, yet giving it a lower score. >_>


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 25, 2010)

Nevermore said:
			
		

> TravisTouchdown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah...no. >_>


----------



## The Sign Painter (Feb 25, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> Yetiman15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It can still be better with a lower score.

1st game is okay. gets an 8
2nd game is revealed, millions of fanboys drool
2nd game comes out, millions of fanboys shat bricks.
2nd game is reviewed by place with non-fanboys, they liked the first, but the second was not as good as anticipated.
2nd game gets 7.5
Millions of fanboys mourn


----------



## Mr. L (Feb 25, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> Nevermore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah.....yes.


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 25, 2010)

Nevermore said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not as good as anticipated ≠ not good period. That's what so many people need to understand. You shouldn't judge a game based on how well YOU wanted it to be, but by how well it IS. >_>


----------



## The Sign Painter (Feb 25, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> Nevermore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is like just making a game with all the same features as the game, just with different levels, then giving it a better score than the last!

Hardcore gamers usually don't want games to be repeats.


----------



## Yetiman15 (Feb 25, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> Yetiman15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well the times between one game and it's sequel change and games develop. 
Now let me just use the Metroid Prime series as an example The first game was groundbreaking got 9.8's 10's you name it some people agree some disagree.
The next one was considered not as good a "letdown" let's say and respectively it received lower scores but were still high (It was a good game just wasn't really much more than an expansion almost what with a new world and new story) Then MP3 comes out for the wii and its main selling point was the wii motion controls. It's considered the best of the series by multiple reviewers but receives a lower score than the original.

Why is this?

Maybe there are some things in that game that make it lose it's metroid feel due to the fact that you are being spoken to and are never truly alone that has defined metroid since it was made. Now this isn't the only thing that may have given it a lower score (It is to me  ) But I feel that rating are more of a wow factor than they are actual rankings I suppose. Metroid Prime Stunned the gaming community as did Ocaraina of time in your case, I guess Metroid Prime 3 and Spirit Tracks just didn't have a higher Wow factor.


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 25, 2010)

Nevermore said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That should be irrelevant to the score of a game, though. Reviewers need to realize that, whether they like it or not, scores are permanent. It doesn't matter what they say in the review, because all that will be remembered years from that time will be the score. That's why I'm against the usual way of scoring games. Our reviews, when we make them, will have a different way of scoring games. Anyway, the point is that even if a game's the exact same game with added features, in the case of Wii Fit and Wii Fit Plus, then the game with more features should definitely get a higher score. People look at scores to decide if they should buy the game or not. What if the weren't aware of the differences between Wii Fit and Wii Fit Plus (let's assume that the "Plus" in the name isn't a dead giveaway, lol), and they were just looking at the scores. If a reviewer gave Wii Fit Plus a lower score than the original because it wasn't as different as they expected, then it's the consumer that will be confused and may choose to purchase the game with the higher score instead, even if it's not the better version. Get it?


----------



## Yetiman15 (Feb 25, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> Nevermore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Rawburt (Feb 25, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> Nevermore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If people only pay attention to the score that's their fault. The score is the most irrelevant part of a review.


----------



## -Aaron (Feb 25, 2010)

Let's take a look at No More Heroes and No More Heroes 2. Now, No More Heroes 2 got a lower score than No More Heroes. Let's take a look why:

No More Heroes
<table><tr><th>Pros</th><th>Cons</td></tr><tr><td>
It didn't rely heavily on waggle, controls were great.</td><td>Overworld was very bland.</td></tr><tr><td>
Bosses were fun to fight.</td><td>Jobs felt repetitive, and again, bland.</td></tr><tr><td>
Humor was great.</td><td>Graphics were a bit dull.</td></tr><tr><td>
Soundtrack was good.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>
Story was good.</td><td></td></tr></table>

No More Heroes 2
<table><tr><th>Pros</th><th>Cons</td></tr><tr><td>
Controls were great.</td><td>The story left some holes open in the plot.</td></tr><tr><td>
More bosses than the last game.</td><td>Overworld was not improved, but instead, has been completely removed.</td></tr><tr><td>
Humor is better than the last game.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>
Side-jobs are now 8-bit mini-games.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>
Graphics have been improved.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>
Boss Battle has been added.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>
Soundtrack is still good</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td></tr></table>

Now, by your logic, No More Heroes 2 should have been the better game. But it's not. Why? Because some of my friends, me, and "biased" reviewers felt like the story left questions unanswered. Especially since this is the last No More Heroes game on the Wii, and the last one with the same protagonist. So your "games with better features deserve a higher score" argument is flawed.


----------



## Megamannt125 (Feb 25, 2010)

But Tye, with your logic, then new Sonic games really are awful!


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 26, 2010)

Rawburt said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know that, but it's the only part that never goes away. People forget what's been said in reviews, but those numbers will always exist. There are even websites that keep track of every review score a game has ever gotten. These numbers are permanent. That's the problem.


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 26, 2010)

TravisTouchdown said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First of all, of course I'm going to review games I like. I'm not gonna play a game that I don't like, lol. And the scores won't be "better" than those games that I don't play, because I won't be reviewing them! =p


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 26, 2010)

TravisTouchdown said:
			
		

> Let's take a look at No More Heroes and No More Heroes 2. Now, No More Heroes 2 got a lower score than No More Heroes. Let's take a look why:
> 
> No More Heroes
> <table><tr><th>Pros</th><th>Cons</td></tr><tr><td>
> ...


Story is a feature, too. >_>


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 26, 2010)

Megamannt125 said:
			
		

> But Tye, with your logic, then new Sonic games really are awful!


And where are you getting that from? There's a difference, and I pointed it out before;



			
				Tyeforce said:
			
		

> Do you even know what the word "unanimous" means? One person can't think that it's "unanimously" better, because in order for something to be unanimous, a _group_ of people have to all agree the same. I'm not speaking for myself here, I'm saying that almost _everyone_ agrees that Spirit Tracks is better than Phantom Hourglass, so it's almost unanimous. Don't take my word for it, ask almost anyone. Spirit Tracks took what Phantom Hourglass had and improved on it; it's better, and that's pretty much a fact. Of course, someone can still prefer Phantom Hourglass over Spirit Tracks, but because the games use the same engine yet Spirit Tracks added and fixed a lot of things, it's clearly the better game. The only reason why that can be said is because the games are so similar. *It's not like you're comparing old Sonic games to new Sonic games; there's a very big difference in gameplay and everything there.* Here, that's not the case. It's like saying Wii Fit is better than Wii Fit Plus, when Wii Fit Plus is the exact same game as Wii Fit, except with added game modes and features. Obviously, Spirit Tracks isn't the exact same game as Phantom Hourglass with added features, but they're still very similar. Kinda like New Super Mario Bros. and New Super Mario Bros. Wii. Almost anyone will tell you that New Super Mario Bros. Wii was by far the better game, because it took what New Super Mario Bros. had an heavily expanded on it, while still being a similar game.


----------



## Rawburt (Feb 26, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> Rawburt said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, that is a problem indeed, most of the time there is no real basis behind the number anyway, people just pick what "feels right"   

In any case, it seems like you're steering away from the traditional method of review, so I'll be interested in seeing what method you intend on using to review games.


----------



## -Aaron (Feb 26, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> TravisTouchdown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You just threw away your entire argument in the trash by saying that.


----------



## Pear (Feb 26, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> Nevermore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How would that work though? There would be no highest score for games. It would be like:
GTA 4 already got a 10/10. So the sequel would have to get 15/10.


----------



## Megamannt125 (Feb 26, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> Megamannt125 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The definition of the word doesn't pick and choose, like you're doing when using it.


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 26, 2010)

Megamannt125 said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What do you mean? Are you implying that newer Sonic games are considered nearly unanimously worse than the old ones? If so, that's not true. The Sonic fanbase is split. Besides, the games are very different from each other, unlike Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks. If you're talking about two similar Sonic games, like Rush and Rush Adventure, then you can compare them like that, but not two games like Sonic the Hedgehog 1991 and Sonic the Hedgehog 2006, which are radically different from each other.


----------



## David (Feb 28, 2010)

just from looking at the cover i can agree with the worst zelda ever thing, i used to be the biggest zelda fan ever, but... they killed it.. lol so im done


----------



## Zex (Feb 28, 2010)

Boo


----------



## Megamannt125 (Feb 28, 2010)

David said:
			
		

> just from looking at the cover i can agree with the worst zelda ever thing, i used to be the biggest zelda fan ever, but... they killed it.. lol so im done


Don't judge a game until you've played it.


----------



## Zex (Feb 28, 2010)

Megamannt125 said:
			
		

> David said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think its in my top 10 to be honest. Maybe even 5.


----------



## David (Feb 28, 2010)

Zex said:
			
		

> Megamannt125 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ive looked at gameplay, and i HATED PH i doubt id be able to stand this game.


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 28, 2010)

David said:
			
		

> Zex said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Still, don't say you hate it until you try it. It's similar to Phantom Hourglass, but _so_ much better.

And judging a game by its cover is the most ridiculous thing ever. >_> Besides, the Japanese and European cover is awesome. I wish North American got it instead of the boring one we got... =/


----------



## David (Feb 28, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> David said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


well i hate the train idea, i think thats just dumb, but w/e dont get all worked up about it, my opinion shouldnt affect you, even if i wanted to try it i dont have any systems from Nintendo anymore, so i cant.


----------



## The Sign Painter (Feb 28, 2010)

This means that the Zelda and Mario CD-i games should have been given fantastic ratings.


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 28, 2010)

David said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sure you'll find the train to be much more fun than a boat, if you actually gave it a chance.


----------



## Trent the Paladin (Feb 28, 2010)

Tyeforce said:
			
		

> David said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The boat sucked ass. But the damn thing also ended up with more Health than the Train.


----------



## Tyeforce (Mar 1, 2010)

Tom said:
			
		

> Tyeforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Um... They have the same amount of health...


----------

