Reply With QuoteThe friggin' cynicism amongst gamers and game "journalists" really needs to stop. The level of contempt that game players have for videogames is crazy. Its just a form of entertainment that is supposed to be FUN.
Everyone needs to lighten up.
I know.
Although GF erred on the side of being too positive too. If a game deserves a 1%, I want to see 1%. Something that is "good" is a 6, not a fucking 9.2. Even GameFan didn't get that right.
I Live
The friggin' cynicism amongst gamers and game "journalists" really needs to stop. The level of contempt that game players have for videogames is crazy. Its just a form of entertainment that is supposed to be FUN.
Everyone needs to lighten up.
How would you do this? I just want to know your ideas. I think about ways to improve Mario 64 a lot and I keep coming up short, I really love the game.Originally Posted by Bacon
The only thing I'd really want is a larger, unified world to explore that's connected, kinda like Metroid Prime. A seamless world with pipe shortcuts. But that's no longer truly a platformer, is it? I'd want the game to move towards a Zelda/Metroid style, I guess, where all the stars are there and you work your way through the game finding them all. Almost like that little free game Seiklus.
You're thinking of the 156 inmates on your mom. You're the product of a regular jail house sperm shake.
level six laser lotus
LOL Metrio.
I'd go the complete opposite direction. Every stage different and self-contained, along the lines of the 2D Mario games. Platforming as tight and well-designed as the void levels, but set in environments rather than just floating in midair. Alternate objectives/quests and timed speed runs in each stage, but these are a strictly optional method to add replay value and is not necessary to beat the game, just to unlock some bonus stages.
Ambassador of Kickyourassitor
I'm not sure that saying Ocarina of Time's dungeons were tedious and puzzles were goofy is exactly mind blowingly dissing the game. Neither of those complaints seem to be much of a complaint really, when you get right down to it. The graphics were blurry as hell, that's for sure. Link auto-jumped, so if you the player had to jump, he jumped, big fucking deal.
...
Except he'd sometimes jump at the wrong time and in the wrong direction because you couldn't really aim it so well sometimes.
That's a valid complaint.
Rude B'Owl
I just realized that this article is great evidence for my theory that Game Informer is written by a bunch of people perpetually stuck in 3rd grade.
Say Ahhh
Look, I think the point of this whole thing was for GI writers / editors to prove that they weren't brainless Kool-Aid drinkers and that they DO know that even their favorite most sacred games are not without flaw. Does it completely invalidate their scoring system? On some level, yes. I mean, you didn't see them doing anything on RE4. Though I'm sure if they wanted to be especially douchey (read as: Salsashark) they could have talked up the lack of strafing which I remember a lot of morons on TNL whining about.
So, if there's no perfect game then how can any game get a 10? Do any games deserve such a score? Perhaps we should try to see games contextually in terms of when they came out, is Mario 64 a 9 now? No, clearly not. By today's standards no N64 game should be rated above a 7. But, for the time they released I would say they were probably deserving of their score.
Time for a change
Rude B'Owl
I understand the point of the article, but still think it's lame. As Sethsez and others have pointed out more than once in this thread, it isn't hard to find huge flaws in any game, especially old ones. The article's supposed to be provacative but it's presupposing that I'm not already desensitized to such things by annoying internet people.
Maybe this is a super enlightening point to make for gamefaqs, but come on. This is TNL, where slaughtering sacred cows is all in a day's work.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks