amiibo Festival No reviews?
- Thread starter Spongebob
- Start date
Maybe Nintendo finally realized the mistake they did in making an AC game that fans did not want. They aren't reviewing it.
I'm probably wrong, that's why I said "maybe"
I'm probably wrong, that's why I said "maybe"
JCnator
Senior Member
There's already one review out despite Nintendo not sending review copies to mainstream media outlets. And as you guys might imagine, it's a bad game that would cement my decision to not to purchase the game. The game relies too much on RNG in comparison to the Mario Party games, and the way you unlock everything is simply playing more rather than rewarding for your skills.
Anyone else than collectors should stay away from the game at all costs and spend something else instead. Get Mario Party 10 instead!
Anyone else than collectors should stay away from the game at all costs and spend something else instead. Get Mario Party 10 instead!
Zentrility
Poet
I was watching a livestream on YouTube for this game and it didn't seem like the two people playing were having very much fun. :| I really wanted to like the game and have it be super awesome; however, this isn't the case from what I am reading. It's more of a children's game now. Something with skill would have been awesome too. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot to do inside the game either. :O
Adding onto this post... Review copies were sent out, but only about 2-0 days before release. I got a copy, but it didn't come until release day and I saw media in the US get a copy on the Wednesday before. Simply put, Nintendo made an active effort to avoid reviews on launch day. That should make you suspicious enough on its own.
Did anyone honestly expect anything higher than steaming pile of poo as the review?
I think the game was rushed and its full potential wasn't reached. It's a decent enough game, but nothing that can satisfy you for more than an hour at a time. Nintendo probably realized that fans wanted an actual Animal Crossing Wii U and realized AC:AF was going to get harsh reviews because of that.
It's a F2P game that requires Amiibos to do anything. You can't play without Amiibos, so you essentially need to buy the game in store if you want fan favorites Digby and Isabelle. No online multiplayer. The game is trash and was destined to be trash. It's a cash grab on Amiibo collectors and Animal Crossing fans.
Who needs reviews?
The only reviewer that counts is YOU. Not Metacritic, not IGN or Gamespot or Eurogamer or Kotaku or any smaller blog.
The game is good but it's popular to hate on Nintendo right now so people are taking their swings just like in 2013.
Don't let these reviewers do your thinking for you.
I NEVER read reviews until AFTER the fact.
Until AFTER I bought the game & checked it out for myself.
I only read them to see if they match MY opinion of the game.
I just want to see how close or how far off they are.
The way to sniff out a good game is to go off of its concept.
If possible look at the back of the box to get more information.
I RARELY buy a game I don't like. I RARELY buy a bad game.
Sometimes I can tell a good game from the box art alone.
That's how I found Shadowrun on SNES.
Nintendo being the best developer in the business helps too.
I know at the very least the game will be decent if not good with them.
All I gotta do is look for that elliptical Nintendo logo & I don't have to worry.
Nintendo doesn't make bad games. They MAY make games you might not like but they don't make bad games.
They MAY not include features you wanted but they don't make bad games.
In my opinion amiibo Festival is a good game that does NOT deserve the bashing it's getting from the reviewers.
But that's why I don't listen to reviewers anyway.
I picked up these instincts from the NES era. I know how to sniff out a good one.
Check the concept, look at the box & I know what to buy.
Outside of Marvel Alliance on Wii & The Legacy of Goku I & II on GBA, this method hasn't failed me yet.
Truth is I bought those two games based on the license so I really didn't use my method there.
John Lucas
People who don't want to waste what might be their only game they can afford for the foreseeable future need reviews. Not everybody can buy every game that comes out, so they want to be happy with the few they do get. Reviews help people avoid ****ty games.
You don't have to buy a game to know if it's good or not.
And you don't need reviews to know if a game is good before buying either.
You need a buyer's instinct.
It's something I developed from the NES era.
If you understand a game's concept & what it is trying to aim for, you have eliminated half of the work in determining what to buy.
The other half comes from looking at the back of the box to get a further picture of what the game is trying to present.
It also helps if you have a reputable developer/publisher like Nintendo which eliminates a lot of unknowns like "will the game actually work without obvious bugs?" "will the game have polish?".
There has only been 2 times in recent memory where I have regretted a purchase & that's mostly because I bought a game based on the license rather than using my time-tested method.
These games are Marvel Ultimate Alliance on Wii & The Legacy of Goku I & II on GBA.
Didn't think these games would be such a chore.
I never expected groundbreaking gameplay from these games just solid gameplay.
I thought you couldn't go wrong with a bunch of Marvel superheroes in an adventure game format.
I thought you couldn't go wrong with a handheld version of the DragonBall Z universe ESPECIALLY in a 2-pack set.
Shows what I know!
Other than those two glaring exceptions I have never regretted a purchase I made.
People talk about Friday the 13th on NES being one of the worst games of all time with the infamous LJN as the publisher.
I thought it was one of the BEST games with its ability to legitimately scare you in 8-bit.
Jason comes out of nowhere at ANY time. You could not plan him out. You just had to be ready.
It was survival horror before they called games survival horror.
Decades later I find out that Atlus was the developer of this game & I said "NO WONDER I loved it!"
I loved its unfair gameplay. It really captured that helpless hopeless aspect of the movies by doing that.
I don't expect every game to be a masterpiece. But I DO expect every game I buy to be enjoyable to me.
It's all about that buyer's instinct & if people develop that skill more, they'll see the folly in letting the Ivory Tower reviewers do their thinking for them.
So many people have bashed Animal Crossing: amiibo Festival but that game is EXACTLY what I expected it to be & I'm enjoying it. MY review is the only view that matters because I'm the one spending the money.
You'll find that a lot of the things you liked in movies, music, & whatever media form was probably hated by a reviewer.
It still didn't stop you from liking it, did it?
Maybe those reviewers aren't the Final Word on good taste after all.
John Lucas
Last edited:
The Hidden Owl
hm?
by looking at reviews, you can tell by the majority how good the game is.
if you have your heart set on a game, then get it. if you aren't sure though then you probably aren't gonna buy the game just to see if you like it.
and tbh nobody has video game instinct. people are surprised constantly by games even if they've had "experience" in choosing games, sorry bud.
if you have your heart set on a game, then get it. if you aren't sure though then you probably aren't gonna buy the game just to see if you like it.
and tbh nobody has video game instinct. people are surprised constantly by games even if they've had "experience" in choosing games, sorry bud.
It's clear from that line that you're not looking at reviews the same way most other people are. You're looking at it as though people think they're the "Final Word". I'm pretty sure nobody thinks that, or at least it's only a vocal minority that do (those people that lose their **** because a game they like only got a 9/10). Nobody else is taking reviews as a definitive grade of quality for something. Especially with games and game reviews, by their nature, they're subjective. You can't put a definitive grade on them.
But when you're only going to be getting one game that month though, what are you going to do? Take a chance on that game with the 20/100 metacritic score, or the new game everybody is buzzing about with a 95/100? You're gonna get the second one. Scores are subjective but there's still going to be a very high chance you'll not enjoy that 20/100 game like a majority of others didn't because there's got to be something wrong with it, and you're not gonna waste your sole purchase of the month to find that out whether you will be the 1% that does like it.
Or simply as an informative piece that tells you what the game does and whether it does it well or not. Something that will give you a brief overview of the game and let you know what to expect to help you decide whether or not to buy it. Do the mechanics feel good compared to previous or similar games? How are the platforming physics compared to Mario or Donkey Kong? Does the open world have things to do in it? Is the enemy AI stupid? Is the game filled with game breaking issues? Are microtransactions in there? Is the game heavily focused at single or multiplayer to an extent where one is almost useless (such as Splatoon's single player being almost worthless on its own)?
These are things you're not going to know by reading the box, especially since games these days are riddled with dodgy **** like microtransactions and game breaking issues that take months to be fixed. The back of the box is designed to look good and sell you the game. The back of the box, by its nature, is another marketing ploy designed to make you buy it. Of course it bloody looks good! They're not going to put on the back of the box "features heavily broken jumping mechanics, terrible pacing, save corrupting glitch on level 12 and progress hindering paywalls". No, that's what a review tells you.
Buyers instinct? Yea, that's all fine and well, but you're still going to end up with ****ty games you don't like by doing that. You're going to end up with ****ty games you don't like by buying the stuff with high review scores as well. None of it is a perfect science.
If anything, going solely off 'buyers instinct' is the worst possible thing to do since you're going into those games totally uninformed. Reviews are there to help inform you of what to expect to help make your decision, not tell you whether or not you should buy it at all. Using both 'buyers instinct' and reviews together are the only good way to avoid games you won't like, especially if you're only able to make limited purchases, and even then it's not a perfect system.
I've made a few purchases based on impulse and been happy about them, such as one of my favorite games Lollipop Chainsaw with its 67% metacritic score, or Epic Mickey 2 and it's 64%. I've also done the same and ended up with **** like Tamodachi Life and Fantasy Life. I can make those impulse purchases based on little information though because I'm not getting 1 game a month, I'm buying like 3, 4 or 5. If I don't like it, not a big deal, I have other new games to play anyway.
I remember full well what it was like to have to pick 1 game and that's it for 6 months though since I grew up in a lower income family. I didn't take reviews as a definitive score but damn, I'm glad I had that information to go off to help me decide what my new game was going to be for the foreseeable future. If I used 'buyers instinct' then ended up with some crap like Daikatana on the N64 for the next 6 months due to its heavily misleading everything, I would have been p*ssed. I've played it since and damn, I'm glad I trusted reviews.
Reviews are a tool to help inform you, not something you should look to for a yes/no answer.
I do. I have the instinct.
In 1994, I merely looked at the box art of a game called Shadowrun on the SNES & bought the game knowing absolutely NOTHING about what the game was about.
Turned out to be one of my favorite games.
Didn't even know it was a pen-and-paper RPG. I knew nothing about it except that I liked this box art & had a good feeling about this game.
I grew up in a era where nobody really looked at reviews.
Game magazines were around back then but this whole review stuff was ignored by most gamers back then.
We didn't need a review to know that Street Fighter II or Mortal Kombat was gonna be good.
Renting games helped but pretty much you had to feel a game out by intuition back then.
I think gamers have gotten too dependent on this cottage industry that bandwagons on this industry of artists & creators.
I can pick a good one 9 times out of 10.
It's something that you build with practice & experience.
That's how I find good stuff on the eShop.
I don't look at trailers or previews. I look at concept & presentation.
I remember the Gamepros & EGM's from the mid-to-late 1990s & starting to see reviews get more prominence then.
But I didn't need them to know that WCW vs. nWo World Tour was gonna be a good game.
People CAN have that instinct. They just have to develop it & strengthen it.
Helps you separate false hype from legitimate hype.
John Lucas
P.S.: "The majority" is another wording for consensus. Or hivemind.
Good things don't come from hivemind or consensus. Conventional wisdom.
It's the visionary you must seek.
Last edited:
Reviewers influence how people approach a game for better or worse
That's just it though, Tao. People DO take reviewers' words as gospel not just as a second opinion.
And it's a LOT more than vocal minority.
See, I have a working theory that explains humanity. 3 Rules. It goes like this.
1. People Are Selfish.
2. People Are Lazy.
3. People Are Weak.
These are not necessarily good OR bad things in themselves. Each rule has a positive AND negative effect.
Let me explain.
•It is GOOD to think of Self first when someone throws a rock at your head.
You can't depend on someone else to push you out of the way from the danger of that hurtling rock since they are ALSO thinking about their Selves first.
Selfishness or a Self-First focus will protect you from that rock. You move your head to protect your SELF.
Where a Self-First focus goes BAD is when you do things that benefit yourself at the expense of others.
Like say you pull someone else in front of you to protect yourself from that rock & they take the hit instead.
So much evil comes from this simple construct. Self at the cost of Others.
•As for Laziness, it's actually GOOD because it keeps negative Selfishness muted & in check.
Laziness is the lack of energy & without it we would all be serial killers promoting Self at everyone else's expense.
How many times have you seen someone talk "stuff" but not DO "stuff"?
Talking takes less energy than doing. Our half-assed-ness protects us.
Imagine if we actually had follow-through on every malicious thought we had against a person.
Best way to break up a fight is to create distance between the fighters. Enough distance & they'll be too lazy to go over to the other one for confrontation.
However, Laziness is BAD when we take shortcuts on important matters.
Like construction crews putting together a building in a half-assed manner leading to potential deaths.
Like voters not doing research on their candidates & ending up with a destructive Head of State.
Like citizens dumping their hazardous trash in waterways because it's closest.
It's part of why the Bystander Effect is so real. It takes energy to get involved.
•As for Weakness, it's actually GOOD because it forces us to cooperate with each other since none of us have all the tools we need to best succeed alone. There's power in numbers.
It's the only reason the Social Contract exists. Our weakness, our lack of power causes us to make exchanges & share goods & services with each other. There's a reason they call them COMPANIES.
You can only do so much alone. It takes companions, company to achieve the greatest things.
No man or woman is an island. It's probably why poorer people have the tendency to be more charitable than richer people. Wealth is a form of power & it makes you less dependent on the group to get things done.
That ALSO can make you more oblivious & callous to the sufferings of the non-wealthy. Out of touch.
On the same token though, Weakness makes us follow the herd no matter the cost.
Even if that herd is going in the wrong direction, Weakness will make us follow that group right off the cliff because we're scared to go against the crowd.
This is where Mob Mentality steps in. People have to turn off their brains somewhat when they follow a herd.
Somebody else is doing all the thinking & you're doing all the acting.
That's how cults get so powerful. That's how Hitler took over & ruined Germany.
That's how soldiers around the world fall in lockstep with their government's evil plots from the Kamikaze pilots of Japan to the suicide bombers of ISIS to the hordes of Genghis Khan to the street gangs to the Mafias to even the U.S. Military.
**********************************************
I haven't found a hole in this theory yet. I apply this 3 rule set to anything I see & it always fits.
It's why guns don't really protect from home break-ins but rather annoyingly obstructive security mechanisms that make break-ins more trouble than they're worth.
It's because People Are Lazy.
It's why you can't get people to understand a political position you take without putting them into the scenario as if they were the ones suffering.
It's because People Are Selfish.
AND it's why people depend on Consensus or the contradiction called Conventional Wisdom (wisdom ain't conventional) instead of doing their own research & observation.
It's because People Are Weak.
I went through that whole theory of mine to show why it's dangerous to promote Reviewers's views so highly over the actual works.
Most people will take their word or the words of a consensus of reviewers as gospel & leave it at that.
Because People Are Lazy & People Are Weak.
It takes energy & effort to discern & dispute a reviewer's motives (there's ALWAYS a bias & ALWAYS an agenda).
It takes courage & strength to go against that consensus withstanding the slings & arrows you get from your dissent.
The grand majority are not gonna do this. It takes less time & less energy to go with the reviewer's flow.
People tend to go with the Crowd & if the Mob Mentality says "BOO!" to this game then most people will agree with that "BOO!" regardless if it had merit or not.
The reviewers truly have influence over the buyers if the buyers listen to them too much.
Who KNOWS if a Reviewer got paid off to slam a game unfairly?
Who KNOWS if a Reviewer wanted to make a name for himself/herself by trashing a game?
Who KNOWS if the intent of the Reviewer was to scare people off a game in some bizarre notion that the reviewer can have control over the direction of a company & its fortunes?
I HATED when Nintendo went out here bragging about Metacritic scores.
I'm like you of all companies know better than that. What the hell is a Metacritic & why is it important?
I'm not interested in a bunch of untalented critics.
I'm interested in the creators. I'm interested in the artists themselves.
What are THEY trying to acheive? What are THEY trying to convey?
3 articles I'll show you right quick that showcase the undeserved status of Critics & Reviewers.
Pay particular attention to Theodore Roosevelt quote in the first link.
Should We Listen To 'Critics' or Show Them The Door?
Why Critics Are Always Wrong
Five Reasons Why You Shouldn't Trust Movie Critics
When you play so many games for so long as a career, how in the hell do you not get jaded?
Once that happens you are DEFINITELY not reliable as an opinion source.
You have convinced yourself of your lofty status as a Gatekeeper of Good Taste instead of the reality of just being another guy/gal with a mere opinion.
And EVERYBODY'S got one of those & one of something else that I won't mention here but it stinks.
It's EASY for Reviewers to end up in that Ivory Tower where they like to just sit around and smell their own......opinions.
I try my best to maintain the ability to see videogames as fresh as I did at 4 years old when I first saw Pac-Man in an arcade galleria.
I don't like to watch previews so the game will stay fresh to me.
I try my best to keep a blank slate state of mind so I can go in as unbiased & uninfluenced as I possibly can.
That way I don't spend my time trying to compare a game to another game in the series or genre.
I judge the game on what it IS & what it was trying to be.
I never expected amiibo Festival to be Mario Party so I was not disappointed when it showed that it was its own game done in its own style.
It's understandable to make the comparison since both are videogame board games but that's where the similarities end.
It's why I never have trouble with Zelda's changes per game because I don't expect the new game to be like an older one in the series.
I can enjoy Link to the Past AND Ocarina of Time AND Majora's Mask AND Four Swords AND Wind Waker AND Twilight Princess AND Spirit Tracks AND Skyward Sword all on their own merits independently.
And get this. I'm not rich either. My game budget is limited too. Was poor as a child & am poor now.
Still I am able to make good decisions WITHOUT reviewers.
Many times the reviewer's jadedness seeps into their assessments of the gameplay.
I have seen this too many times to count. You find them nitpicking over something so trivial & insignificant.
You see they have forgotten what it was like to be a regular game buyer & have forgotten to see things from this perspective. Stuff most people wouldn't have a problem with reviewers do because they've seen too much & can't appreciate it.
Wealth makes Waste after all.
I'll take the game Michael Jackson: The Experience on Wii for an example.
I'm a big Michael fan & was excited to see a game based off of his songs where you can dance to them.
When the game came out I went into Critic mode & nitpicked about the dance routines not being exact to his routines in the short films, how the character model of Michael didn't show his non-Vitiligo appearance in Off The Wall & Thriller, how there were no Jackson 5/Jacksons songs in the mix, how simple & non-elaborate the package was compared to say Rock Band: The Beatles.
I got so caught up in the minutia that I forgot about the spirit this game was trying to convey.
At a relative's house somebody had this game & I played it with them.
I found out how silly I was to focus so much on these things instead of realizing the joy of dancing out Michael's songs with a group.
It's what Michael would have wanted in a game. People having fun dancing to his music. Simple as that.
Yes it was pretty much Just Dance: Michael Jackson Edition but that was good enough for most people.
Many of his routines were too complicated for people to imitate anyway & that's probably why they did something different in certain spots. I missed this obvious fact because I went into nitpicky Critic mode.
I had fun doing my own interpretation of the moves alongside my relatives.
The game was fun despite all the things it DIDN'T do.
Even I got caught up in some of this nonsense which is why I KNOW not to take reviewer's words so seriously.
Remember Wii Sports wasn't exactly the most highly praised by the reviewers in general but it still became THE #1 Best-Selling Game of All Time at nearly 83 million sold worldwide.
And certainly not Wii Play at nearly 29 million sold worldwide making it the 8th Best-Selling Game of All Time & THE #1 Best-Selling Non-Bundled Game of All Time.
I see what you're saying about Reviewers helping you making better choices but to that I say just build up your Buyer's Instinct some more. You don't really need them.
And with enough Buyer's Instinct you will ALSO learn how to see through the deceptive marketing shown on game cases/boxes.
I'm so good at it because that's what we HAD to do back in the 1980s.
There WAS no reference source outside of a friend's opinion at best & I don't necessarily trust those either since we all have different tastes.
It's how I could see through the false cover of Demon Sword on NES with that Conan the Barbarian artwork to find one of the coolest games on that system with the samurai flying fast through the trees with his growing sword cutting down ninjas (and skeletons if you don't keep moving).
The crappy practices of some of these 3rd party developers certainly makes things harder & I sympathize.
That's why I also say you eliminate more unseen variables like that from trusting a good developer/publisher.
You find the good ones as you tap into your instincts.
It just takes practice, that's all.
John Lucas
That's just it though, Tao. People DO take reviewers' words as gospel not just as a second opinion.
And it's a LOT more than vocal minority.
See, I have a working theory that explains humanity. 3 Rules. It goes like this.
1. People Are Selfish.
2. People Are Lazy.
3. People Are Weak.
These are not necessarily good OR bad things in themselves. Each rule has a positive AND negative effect.
Let me explain.
•It is GOOD to think of Self first when someone throws a rock at your head.
You can't depend on someone else to push you out of the way from the danger of that hurtling rock since they are ALSO thinking about their Selves first.
Selfishness or a Self-First focus will protect you from that rock. You move your head to protect your SELF.
Where a Self-First focus goes BAD is when you do things that benefit yourself at the expense of others.
Like say you pull someone else in front of you to protect yourself from that rock & they take the hit instead.
So much evil comes from this simple construct. Self at the cost of Others.
•As for Laziness, it's actually GOOD because it keeps negative Selfishness muted & in check.
Laziness is the lack of energy & without it we would all be serial killers promoting Self at everyone else's expense.
How many times have you seen someone talk "stuff" but not DO "stuff"?
Talking takes less energy than doing. Our half-assed-ness protects us.
Imagine if we actually had follow-through on every malicious thought we had against a person.
Best way to break up a fight is to create distance between the fighters. Enough distance & they'll be too lazy to go over to the other one for confrontation.
However, Laziness is BAD when we take shortcuts on important matters.
Like construction crews putting together a building in a half-assed manner leading to potential deaths.
Like voters not doing research on their candidates & ending up with a destructive Head of State.
Like citizens dumping their hazardous trash in waterways because it's closest.
It's part of why the Bystander Effect is so real. It takes energy to get involved.
•As for Weakness, it's actually GOOD because it forces us to cooperate with each other since none of us have all the tools we need to best succeed alone. There's power in numbers.
It's the only reason the Social Contract exists. Our weakness, our lack of power causes us to make exchanges & share goods & services with each other. There's a reason they call them COMPANIES.
You can only do so much alone. It takes companions, company to achieve the greatest things.
No man or woman is an island. It's probably why poorer people have the tendency to be more charitable than richer people. Wealth is a form of power & it makes you less dependent on the group to get things done.
That ALSO can make you more oblivious & callous to the sufferings of the non-wealthy. Out of touch.
On the same token though, Weakness makes us follow the herd no matter the cost.
Even if that herd is going in the wrong direction, Weakness will make us follow that group right off the cliff because we're scared to go against the crowd.
This is where Mob Mentality steps in. People have to turn off their brains somewhat when they follow a herd.
Somebody else is doing all the thinking & you're doing all the acting.
That's how cults get so powerful. That's how Hitler took over & ruined Germany.
That's how soldiers around the world fall in lockstep with their government's evil plots from the Kamikaze pilots of Japan to the suicide bombers of ISIS to the hordes of Genghis Khan to the street gangs to the Mafias to even the U.S. Military.
**********************************************
I haven't found a hole in this theory yet. I apply this 3 rule set to anything I see & it always fits.
It's why guns don't really protect from home break-ins but rather annoyingly obstructive security mechanisms that make break-ins more trouble than they're worth.
It's because People Are Lazy.
It's why you can't get people to understand a political position you take without putting them into the scenario as if they were the ones suffering.
It's because People Are Selfish.
AND it's why people depend on Consensus or the contradiction called Conventional Wisdom (wisdom ain't conventional) instead of doing their own research & observation.
It's because People Are Weak.
I went through that whole theory of mine to show why it's dangerous to promote Reviewers's views so highly over the actual works.
Most people will take their word or the words of a consensus of reviewers as gospel & leave it at that.
Because People Are Lazy & People Are Weak.
It takes energy & effort to discern & dispute a reviewer's motives (there's ALWAYS a bias & ALWAYS an agenda).
It takes courage & strength to go against that consensus withstanding the slings & arrows you get from your dissent.
The grand majority are not gonna do this. It takes less time & less energy to go with the reviewer's flow.
People tend to go with the Crowd & if the Mob Mentality says "BOO!" to this game then most people will agree with that "BOO!" regardless if it had merit or not.
The reviewers truly have influence over the buyers if the buyers listen to them too much.
Who KNOWS if a Reviewer got paid off to slam a game unfairly?
Who KNOWS if a Reviewer wanted to make a name for himself/herself by trashing a game?
Who KNOWS if the intent of the Reviewer was to scare people off a game in some bizarre notion that the reviewer can have control over the direction of a company & its fortunes?
I HATED when Nintendo went out here bragging about Metacritic scores.
I'm like you of all companies know better than that. What the hell is a Metacritic & why is it important?
I'm not interested in a bunch of untalented critics.
I'm interested in the creators. I'm interested in the artists themselves.
What are THEY trying to acheive? What are THEY trying to convey?
3 articles I'll show you right quick that showcase the undeserved status of Critics & Reviewers.
Pay particular attention to Theodore Roosevelt quote in the first link.
Should We Listen To 'Critics' or Show Them The Door?
Why Critics Are Always Wrong
Five Reasons Why You Shouldn't Trust Movie Critics
When you play so many games for so long as a career, how in the hell do you not get jaded?
Once that happens you are DEFINITELY not reliable as an opinion source.
You have convinced yourself of your lofty status as a Gatekeeper of Good Taste instead of the reality of just being another guy/gal with a mere opinion.
And EVERYBODY'S got one of those & one of something else that I won't mention here but it stinks.
It's EASY for Reviewers to end up in that Ivory Tower where they like to just sit around and smell their own......opinions.
I try my best to maintain the ability to see videogames as fresh as I did at 4 years old when I first saw Pac-Man in an arcade galleria.
I don't like to watch previews so the game will stay fresh to me.
I try my best to keep a blank slate state of mind so I can go in as unbiased & uninfluenced as I possibly can.
That way I don't spend my time trying to compare a game to another game in the series or genre.
I judge the game on what it IS & what it was trying to be.
I never expected amiibo Festival to be Mario Party so I was not disappointed when it showed that it was its own game done in its own style.
It's understandable to make the comparison since both are videogame board games but that's where the similarities end.
It's why I never have trouble with Zelda's changes per game because I don't expect the new game to be like an older one in the series.
I can enjoy Link to the Past AND Ocarina of Time AND Majora's Mask AND Four Swords AND Wind Waker AND Twilight Princess AND Spirit Tracks AND Skyward Sword all on their own merits independently.
And get this. I'm not rich either. My game budget is limited too. Was poor as a child & am poor now.
Still I am able to make good decisions WITHOUT reviewers.
Many times the reviewer's jadedness seeps into their assessments of the gameplay.
I have seen this too many times to count. You find them nitpicking over something so trivial & insignificant.
You see they have forgotten what it was like to be a regular game buyer & have forgotten to see things from this perspective. Stuff most people wouldn't have a problem with reviewers do because they've seen too much & can't appreciate it.
Wealth makes Waste after all.
I'll take the game Michael Jackson: The Experience on Wii for an example.
I'm a big Michael fan & was excited to see a game based off of his songs where you can dance to them.
When the game came out I went into Critic mode & nitpicked about the dance routines not being exact to his routines in the short films, how the character model of Michael didn't show his non-Vitiligo appearance in Off The Wall & Thriller, how there were no Jackson 5/Jacksons songs in the mix, how simple & non-elaborate the package was compared to say Rock Band: The Beatles.
I got so caught up in the minutia that I forgot about the spirit this game was trying to convey.
At a relative's house somebody had this game & I played it with them.
I found out how silly I was to focus so much on these things instead of realizing the joy of dancing out Michael's songs with a group.
It's what Michael would have wanted in a game. People having fun dancing to his music. Simple as that.
Yes it was pretty much Just Dance: Michael Jackson Edition but that was good enough for most people.
Many of his routines were too complicated for people to imitate anyway & that's probably why they did something different in certain spots. I missed this obvious fact because I went into nitpicky Critic mode.
I had fun doing my own interpretation of the moves alongside my relatives.
The game was fun despite all the things it DIDN'T do.
Even I got caught up in some of this nonsense which is why I KNOW not to take reviewer's words so seriously.
Remember Wii Sports wasn't exactly the most highly praised by the reviewers in general but it still became THE #1 Best-Selling Game of All Time at nearly 83 million sold worldwide.
And certainly not Wii Play at nearly 29 million sold worldwide making it the 8th Best-Selling Game of All Time & THE #1 Best-Selling Non-Bundled Game of All Time.
I see what you're saying about Reviewers helping you making better choices but to that I say just build up your Buyer's Instinct some more. You don't really need them.
And with enough Buyer's Instinct you will ALSO learn how to see through the deceptive marketing shown on game cases/boxes.
I'm so good at it because that's what we HAD to do back in the 1980s.
There WAS no reference source outside of a friend's opinion at best & I don't necessarily trust those either since we all have different tastes.
It's how I could see through the false cover of Demon Sword on NES with that Conan the Barbarian artwork to find one of the coolest games on that system with the samurai flying fast through the trees with his growing sword cutting down ninjas (and skeletons if you don't keep moving).
The crappy practices of some of these 3rd party developers certainly makes things harder & I sympathize.
That's why I also say you eliminate more unseen variables like that from trusting a good developer/publisher.
You find the good ones as you tap into your instincts.
It just takes practice, that's all.
John Lucas
Last edited:
Similar threads
