This just proves how biased reviewers are today

[Tyeforce]

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". >_>

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.

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. >_>

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

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]

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep

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.

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. >_>

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

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. >_>

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]

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". >_>

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.

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. >_>

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]

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep

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. >_>

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

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. >_>

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.

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]

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep

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

Not as good as anticipated

 

[Rawburt]

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep

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

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. >_>

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.

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?

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

 

[-Aaron]

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]

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

 

[Tyeforce]

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep

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. >_>

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.

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?

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

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]

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepyou.
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<small>Which is exactly what Andrew and I plan on doing.
</small>

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. >_>)

It'll be fanboy rants.

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

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

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.

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]

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.

Story is a feature, too. >_>

 

[Tyeforce]

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;

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]

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep

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.

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?

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

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.

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]

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepyou.
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<small>Which is exactly what Andrew and I plan on doing.
</small>

It'll be fanboy rants.

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

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

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.

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

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

 

[Pear]

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep

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

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. >_>

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.

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?

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]

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;

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.

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

 

[Tyeforce]

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;

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.

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

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]

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]

Boo

 

[Megamannt125]

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.