This just proves how biased reviewers are today

[Thunder]

Game quality is on the decline, get over it.

you're wrong and a troll get over it.

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.

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

 

[Garrett x50 cal]

Game quality is on the decline, get over it.

you're wrong and a troll get over it.

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.

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

Who is he?

 

[NGT]

No, Miranda responded to my PM

 

[Pear]

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]

Game quality is on the decline, get over it.

you're wrong and a troll get over it.

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.

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

Who is he?

Pretty sure it's Tyler.

 

[Shadow Jolteon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Tyeforce]

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.

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

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]

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.

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

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.

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

 

[Tyeforce]

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.

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

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.

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

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]

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepcan'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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

 

[Tyeforce]

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepcan'tshould have been an HD console. There is no reason for Nintendo to be so behind in technology.

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.

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

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.

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

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]

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepcan'tshould

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

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.

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

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

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

 

[Garrett x50 cal]

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.

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]

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]

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepcan'tshould

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.

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

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

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

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

 

[Tyeforce]

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.

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.

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.