Review: Super Mario Galaxy 2

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Toadstool really loves his stars. Naughty stars that must be...porned. I guess why it is always stars, because they are so damn sexy. I think the new one-liner will be, "Damn baby, you are sexier than a star in Mario Galaxy". Or "I want to hold you like Toadstool holds stars". Welcome to the world of starsexuals.

Are those spiffy Red Stars back? and usable in anything other than pointless unloosable situations?

Susan Arendt:

[Cold-Shoulder]:
Good review as always.
This game might finally give me a reason to dust off the Wii and take it out for another go. :D
Will there be any chance that the next review on the Escapist will be Red Dead Redemption?

Oh, and the banktoad changes his appearance depending on how many star bits you've deposited. At 1000, he switches to glasses, at 2000, he switches to a spear and shield. So he's not always being...friendly...with a star bit.

Makes perfect sense.

So much creativity for everything except for the plot...

SuperMse:
I bet John Funk is upset that he didn't get to do this review.

Yeah I am to, the jokes were kinda sad.

Oh god, that Toad!! *cringe*

Well I know I'll be getting it. Except...

Plinglebob:
The UK doesn't get this until the 11th June :(

Hah, that's nothing! Release date for me in Australia is July 1st. July... 1st!

On the bright side, at least I now have a timeframe with which to complete Monster Hunter Tri's single player.

nice review

Starbit: Why?(cries) I feel so cheap!

Susan Arendt:

BehattedWanderer:
:D Gooooooood. Though Susan's puns are both amazing and cringeworthy. Well done!

My work here is done. *claps hands in a "that's that" motion*

And the work done is well done. Can't wait to compare moments of all-out dorky puns once I can play it.

ThisNewGuy:

Hmm, I see what you mean. I'm just having a hard time understanding what is "objectively good" in comparison to something that's "opinionated good." Who gets to say if a game is a "good" game then?

Consensus.

Consensus thinks Halo 2 is good because it likes it. I do not like it, but can concede others do, so my not liking it has nothing to do with the quality of the title. Also, games do contain many qualitative elements.

To use the previous poster's camera issues with 3D Mario titles: Those very same camera designs have not prevented many others from effectively playing and unabashedly enjoying those games. Compare the effect of the camera in those games to, say, Bubsy 3D.

MissAshley:

ThisNewGuy:

Hmm, I see what you mean. I'm just having a hard time understanding what is "objectively good" in comparison to something that's "opinionated good." Who gets to say if a game is a "good" game then?

Consensus.

Consensus thinks Halo 2 is good because it likes it. I do not like it, but can concede others do, so my not liking it has nothing to do with the quality of the title. Also, games do contain many qualitative elements.

To use the previous poster's camera issues with 3D Mario titles: Those very same camera designs have not prevented many others from effectively playing and unabashedly enjoying those games. Compare the effect of the camera in those games to, say, Bubsy 3D.

Hmm, that's a very dangerous approach to reviews then, especially if you need to publish a review before the game is even out. How do you say that a game is objectively good when there is no consensus yet?

Also, consensus is a dangerous way to validate an objectively good "truth" because there may be a consensus amongst 18 year olds in one way, but there may be a consensus amongst 40 year olds in another way, who is the objective "truth" then?

Also, I do concede that others may like this game, I'm just saying that I didn't like SMG and will remain skeptical of its sequel until after I play it myself or if some reviewers actually address some problems that I have with the SMG.

Super Mario Galaxy is probably my favorite game of this generation, so this one is a must-buy, of course.

droppingpenny:

Nope, that's not what I've said. I said, that there are objectively good games, and objectively bad games (also all the quality grades in between), but whenever a person likes a game or not depends solely on his/her opinion of that specific game. If a person likes a game it is based on an opinion as well as when a person doesn't like a game. Though many people confuse their own opinions with objective facts and because of that state their opinions as such facts. I personally don't think, you are one of those people, you just happen think differently than I am about this subject, and that's perfectly fine. I can see where you are coming from, since I used to think the same way about other topics. I just hope you understand my point of view as well, despite my poor English.

The problem I have is that you says that there are objectively good and bad games because I don't believe that is true. You see, if you say that a game is objectively good then that means it is a fact that the game is good and even if I don't like the game, I can not argue that it is not good.

But that's not true is it?

This is because what make the game 'good' is subjective from person to person. That's means that you can not get everyone to universally argree that a game is 'good'. Even the 'objectively bad' games can be consider 'good' to someone and vice versa. If everyone in the world except me says that a game is 10/10 because it have good graphics, gameplay, story etc..., the game would still not be objectively good because I can honestly argue that the graphics are childish, the gameplay is broken and the story is medicore. You can't tell me that I am wrong because my tastes are vastly different than yours. An opinion cannot be an objective facts otherwise it is not an opinion, is it? Nor an opinion on a subjective matter(like 'good' and 'bad'), no matter how you consider to be moronic, can be wrong.

Unless you think otherwise...

sougo13:
The problem I have is that you says that there are objectively good and bad games because I don't believe that is true. You see, if you say that a game is objectively good then that means it is a fact that the game is good and even if I don't like the game, I can not argue that it is not good.

But that's not true is it?

This is because what make the game 'good' is subjective from person to person. That's means that you can not get everyone to universally argree that a game is 'good'. Even the 'objectively bad' games can be consider 'good' to someone and vice versa. If everyone in the world except me says that a game is 10/10 because it have good graphics, gameplay, story etc..., the game would still not be objectively good because I can honestly argue that the graphics are childish, the gameplay is broken and the story is medicore. You can't tell me that I am wrong because my tastes are vastly different than yours. An opinion cannot be an objective facts otherwise it is not an opinion, is it? Nor an opinion on a subjective matter(like 'good' and 'bad'), no matter how you consider to be moronic, can be wrong.

Unless you think otherwise...

First there is a difference between a subjectively good and objectively good game. A subjectivly good game is based on the opinion of the person who is playing it. An objectively good game is a game that sets a goal that it tries to archieve, if it is archieved then the game is good, if it isn't archieved it's bad, and there are also the steps in between depending how near the particular game comes near the goal.

F. e. SMG 2 The goal of this game is, to be a challenging plattformer with the focus on the gameplay and leveldesign. to archieve this goal this game needs at least following criteria: responsive controlls, different levels that are designed for plattforming and vary in difficulty, design, layout as well as have no frustrating sections where it is impossible to get through using only your skills, including the optical presentation of said sections, where you can clearly see where you can or cannot jump/shoot/whatever, music to break the silence in the game and sound effects for feedback, variety in gameplay mechanics. SMG 2 Managed to archieve this goal so it is a good 3D Plattformer. Everything else is a bonus that the developer gives you.

Ok, some of the criteria can still be judged semi-opinionated that's of course why the ratings of the same game by differents critics vary mildly. But the point is, that there are objective criteria out there, that people use to judge a game, that's why it is possible to not like an objectively good game, and to like an objectivly bad game.

sougo13:

droppingpenny:

Nope, that's not what I've said. I said, that there are objectively good games, and objectively bad games (also all the quality grades in between), but whenever a person likes a game or not depends solely on his/her opinion of that specific game. If a person likes a game it is based on an opinion as well as when a person doesn't like a game. Though many people confuse their own opinions with objective facts and because of that state their opinions as such facts. I personally don't think, you are one of those people, you just happen think differently than I am about this subject, and that's perfectly fine. I can see where you are coming from, since I used to think the same way about other topics. I just hope you understand my point of view as well, despite my poor English.

The problem I have is that you says that there are objectively good and bad games because I don't believe that is true. You see, if you say that a game is objectively good then that means it is a fact that the game is good and even if I don't like the game, I can not argue that it is not good.

But that's not true is it?

This is because what make the game 'good' is subjective from person to person. That's means that you can not get everyone to universally argree that a game is 'good'. Even the 'objectively bad' games can be consider 'good' to someone and vice versa. If everyone in the world except me says that a game is 10/10 because it have good graphics, gameplay, story etc..., the game would still not be objectively good because I can honestly argue that the graphics are childish, the gameplay is broken and the story is medicore. You can't tell me that I am wrong because my tastes are vastly different than yours. An opinion cannot be an objective facts otherwise it is not an opinion, is it? Nor an opinion on a subjective matter(like 'good' and 'bad'), no matter how you consider to be moronic, can be wrong.

Unless you think otherwise...

"I don't like a game" is an opinion no one can take away from you. "This game is bad" can be objectively wrong.

I don't like Fallout 3. I'd never call it bad.

droppingpenny:

First there is a difference between a subjectively good and objectively good game. A subjectivly good game is based on the opinion of the person who is playing it. An objectively good game is a game that sets a goal that it tries to archieve, if it is archieved then the game is good, if it isn't archieved it's bad, and there are also the steps in between depending how near the particular game comes near the goal.

F. e. SMG 2 The goal of this game is, to be a challenging plattformer with the focus on the gameplay and leveldesign. to archieve this goal this game needs at least following criteria: responsive controlls, different levels that are designed for plattforming and vary in difficulty, design, layout as well as have no frustrating sections where it is impossible to get through using only your skills, including the optical presentation of said sections, where you can clearly see where you can or cannot jump/shoot/whatever, music to break the silence in the game and sound effects for feedback, variety in gameplay mechanics. SMG 2 Managed to archieve this goal so it is a good 3D Plattformer. Everything else is a bonus that the developer gives you.

Ok, some of the criteria can still be judged semi-opinionated that's of course why the ratings of the same game by differents critics vary mildly. But the point is, that there are objective criteria out there, that people use to judge a game, that's why it is possible to not like an objectively good game, and to like an objectivly bad game.

Hm... I see your point and of course it make sense. There are indeed similar objective criterias that people use to judge their game. If a game were to meet those criteria then it is indeed a good game. However, I still stand by my point that there are no objectively good game. This is because the problem you have is that the game have to meet everyone's criteria to be call objectively good.

I know you said that: 'some of the criteria can still be judged semi-opinionated' and 'the ratings of the same game by differents critics vary mildly.' The meat of the problem is that ALL of the criteria can be opinionated. To go back to your example: In SMG 2, one person might say the controls are responsive but another might call it overly-sensitive; the 'causal gamer' might call the level design as difficult but the 'hardcore gamer' will dismiss it as a cake walk; the music, presentation and effect are definately up to the player's taste.

This is another reason critics' opinion of the same game does differ greatly. You can find some right here in the escapist:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1569-Final-Fantasy-XIII
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/7296-Review-Final-Fantasy-XIII

The point that I am making is that to call a game objectively good, the game have to be good for everyone. And I am yet to find a game that does that.

John Funk:

sougo13:

droppingpenny:

Nope, that's not what I've said. I said, that there are objectively good games, and objectively bad games (also all the quality grades in between), but whenever a person likes a game or not depends solely on his/her opinion of that specific game. If a person likes a game it is based on an opinion as well as when a person doesn't like a game. Though many people confuse their own opinions with objective facts and because of that state their opinions as such facts. I personally don't think, you are one of those people, you just happen think differently than I am about this subject, and that's perfectly fine. I can see where you are coming from, since I used to think the same way about other topics. I just hope you understand my point of view as well, despite my poor English.

The problem I have is that you says that there are objectively good and bad games because I don't believe that is true. You see, if you say that a game is objectively good then that means it is a fact that the game is good and even if I don't like the game, I can not argue that it is not good.

But that's not true is it?

This is because what make the game 'good' is subjective from person to person. That's means that you can not get everyone to universally argree that a game is 'good'. Even the 'objectively bad' games can be consider 'good' to someone and vice versa. If everyone in the world except me says that a game is 10/10 because it have good graphics, gameplay, story etc..., the game would still not be objectively good because I can honestly argue that the graphics are childish, the gameplay is broken and the story is medicore. You can't tell me that I am wrong because my tastes are vastly different than yours. An opinion cannot be an objective facts otherwise it is not an opinion, is it? Nor an opinion on a subjective matter(like 'good' and 'bad'), no matter how you consider to be moronic, can be wrong.

Unless you think otherwise...

"I don't like a game" is an opinion no one can take away from you. "This game is bad" can be objectively wrong.

I don't like Fallout 3. I'd never call it bad.

Yeah I get what you mean. I played Fallout 3 myself and while not liking it as most people, I can't say that it is bad either.

Although, I am not familiar with the situation of Fallout 3. Isn't there a huge outcry about it and there are criticism among the players about the game?

The other question I have is that who can classify a game as 'objectively good'?

sougo13:

I know you said that: 'some of the criteria can still be judged semi-opinionated' and 'the ratings of the same game by differents critics vary mildly.' The meat of the problem is that ALL of the criteria can be opinionated. To go back to your example: In SMG 2, one person might say the controls are responsive but another might call it overly-sensitive; the 'causal gamer' might call the level design as difficult but the 'hardcore gamer' will dismiss it as a cake walk; the music, presentation and effect are definately up to the player's taste.

Remember, I said, that the criteria have to be there how you think they are ist not relevant.
If the criteria are met, the game is good, regardless whenever a reviewer likes it or not. Btw. responsive controlls mean: You press a button, and the action immediatly happens on screen.

sougo13:
This is another reason critics' opinion of the same game does differ greatly. You can find some right here in the escapist:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1569-Final-Fantasy-XIII
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/7296-Review-Final-Fantasy-XIII

The point that I am making is that to call a game objectively good, the game have to be good for everyone. And I am yet to find a game that does that.

First Zero Punctuation is not a review show, Yatzee just makes fun of the games, and exaggerates their flaws for entertaiment, though he calls it "review" it should be called "bias". So the comparison doesn't work.

droppingpenny:

sougo13:

I know you said that: 'some of the criteria can still be judged semi-opinionated' and 'the ratings of the same game by differents critics vary mildly.' The meat of the problem is that ALL of the criteria can be opinionated. To go back to your example: In SMG 2, one person might say the controls are responsive but another might call it overly-sensitive; the 'causal gamer' might call the level design as difficult but the 'hardcore gamer' will dismiss it as a cake walk; the music, presentation and effect are definately up to the player's taste.

Remember, I said, that the criteria have to be there how you think they are ist not relevant.
If the criteria are met, the game is good, regardless whenever a reviewer likes it or not. Btw. responsive controlls mean: You press a button, and the action immediatly happens on screen.

sougo13:
This is another reason critics' opinion of the same game does differ greatly. You can find some right here in the escapist:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1569-Final-Fantasy-XIII
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/7296-Review-Final-Fantasy-XIII

The point that I am making is that to call a game objectively good, the game have to be good for everyone. And I am yet to find a game that does that.

First Zero Punctuation is not a review show, Yatzee just makes fun of the games, and exaggerates their flaws for entertaiment, though he calls it "review" it should be called "bias". So the comparison doesn't work.

I know some don't consider Yahtzee's videos 'reviews'. Sometimes, his videos cannot even be taken seriously (like the FFXIII video) but that's because he does not like JRPG and made it explicitly known in the video. I consider him as someone who gives his honest opinion about the games he know and the humour is a bonus part of it.

Anyways, if you haven't heard, there are extremely different responses to FFXIII. My point with the comparison is how two people's views can differ greatly.

Finally, if the reviewer's opinion don't matter, then who's to be decide when the criterias are met?

ThisNewGuy:

Hmm, that's a very dangerous approach to reviews then, especially if you need to publish a review before the game is even out. How do you say that a game is objectively good when there is no consensus yet?

Also, consensus is a dangerous way to validate an objectively good "truth" because there may be a consensus amongst 18 year olds in one way, but there may be a consensus amongst 40 year olds in another way, who is the objective "truth" then?

I didn't intend to validate consensus as an objective means of determining quality. I only intended to point out that's how it's always seemed to work.

Cool review. I don't own a Wii so I guess I missed out on this generations Mario platformer, huh?

=/

Oh well, next gen I'll hop back on the band wagon. Hopefully Nintendo doesn't decide to start sucking then.

MissAshley:

ThisNewGuy:

Hmm, that's a very dangerous approach to reviews then, especially if you need to publish a review before the game is even out. How do you say that a game is objectively good when there is no consensus yet?

Also, consensus is a dangerous way to validate an objectively good "truth" because there may be a consensus amongst 18 year olds in one way, but there may be a consensus amongst 40 year olds in another way, who is the objective "truth" then?

I didn't intend to validate consensus as an objective means of determining quality. I only intended to point out that's how it's always seemed to work.

Well, personally, I don't find it to be a very good way to work at all. I guess I'll just never understand how a reviewer can say "I don't like this game. I've found these aspects of the game to be flaws in my opinion. And in my opinion, these flaws really puts me off to the whole experience. But, it's a great game because everyone else said so."

I've come to believe that reviews are always opinions rather than objective truths, and it's up to me as a reader to determine whether or not I agree with the opinions.

sougo13:
Yeah I get what you mean. I played Fallout 3 myself and while not liking it as most people, I can't say that it is bad either.

Although, I am not familiar with the situation of Fallout 3. Isn't there a huge outcry about it and there are criticism among the players about the game?

The other question I have is that who can classify a game as 'objectively good'?

Honestly, anyone who can forward an unbiased perspective and objective analysis of a game. (I almost said 'unbiased opinion', which kinda works.)

There are people who can set aside their own prejudices and evaluate games honestly. Including the staff here. That said, there's always a risk of getting sidetracked by a title.

As for Fallout 3's controversy? A lot of that comes from one of two sources, the lack of freedom compared to previous games in the series, and the sort of world it creates. People who do, tend to react poorly to one or the other. I'm not sure that there isn't a third source I can't think of, but, there you go.

The review was lame. I wanted in-depth analysis of how the gameplay, sound and everything else works, not 4th-grade low brow humor.

"Oh he poops star bits."
"The second player star is cute".
"Luigi go away."

It was cringe worthy. And the worst part is you used that "whatever" casual tone of your voice for reviewing the ACTUAL game and not displaying your poor stand up comedy.

It was like watching a female ScrewAttack review.

Awesome looking game though.

sougo13:

I know some don't consider Yahtzee's videos 'reviews'. Sometimes, his videos cannot even be taken seriously (like the FFXIII video) but that's because he does not like JRPG and made it explicitly known in the video. I consider him as someone who gives his honest opinion about the games he know and the humour is a bonus part of it.

Anyways, if you haven't heard, there are extremely different responses to FFXIII. My point with the comparison is how two people's views can differ greatly.

Finally, if the reviewer's opinion don't matter, then who's to be decide when the criterias are met?

Reviewers opinion shouldn't matter for the score, unfortunately we are all human, and people who have no experience with separating their opinion from actual facts end up mixing them up and providing very different scores. However, this does not deny the excistence of objective criteria. There always will be critics who can not put their bias aside and rate a game, but there are a lot critics out there who do this very thing, reviewing without relying on personal opinion.
I understand your argument, though that many reviews are opinions, because like I said already many of the reviewers just express their nonreflective opinion.

varun619:
The review was lame. I wanted in-depth analysis of how the gameplay, sound and everything else works, not 4th-grade low brow humor.

"Oh he poops star bits."
"The second player star is cute".
"Luigi go away."

It was cringe worthy. And the worst part is you used that "whatever" casual tone of your voice for reviewing the ACTUAL game and not displaying your poor stand up comedy.

It was like watching a female ScrewAttack review.

Awesome looking game though.

Did you actually read the review?

Susan Arendt:

varun619:
The review was lame. I wanted in-depth analysis of how the gameplay, sound and everything else works, not 4th-grade low brow humor.

"Oh he poops star bits."
"The second player star is cute".
"Luigi go away."

It was cringe worthy. And the worst part is you used that "whatever" casual tone of your voice for reviewing the ACTUAL game and not displaying your poor stand up comedy.

It was like watching a female ScrewAttack review.

Awesome looking game though.

Did you actually read the review?

Yes, Susan. If you noticed, I was criticizing your video review, not the written one. The written one is alright. It's the video that seemed like a last minute add-on.

varun619:

Susan Arendt:

varun619:
The review was lame. I wanted in-depth analysis of how the gameplay, sound and everything else works, not 4th-grade low brow humor.

"Oh he poops star bits."
"The second player star is cute".
"Luigi go away."

It was cringe worthy. And the worst part is you used that "whatever" casual tone of your voice for reviewing the ACTUAL game and not displaying your poor stand up comedy.

It was like watching a female ScrewAttack review.

Awesome looking game though.

Did you actually read the review?

Yes, Susan. If you noticed, I was criticizing your video review, not the written one. The written one is alright. It's the video that seemed like a last minute add-on.

The video is not a review, it is a supplement. It is not meant to stand in the place of a review, merely supplement the information provided in the written review. It lacks "in-depth analysis" because it's not meant to have it.

droppingpenny:

sougo13:

I know some don't consider Yahtzee's videos 'reviews'. Sometimes, his videos cannot even be taken seriously (like the FFXIII video) but that's because he does not like JRPG and made it explicitly known in the video. I consider him as someone who gives his honest opinion about the games he know and the humour is a bonus part of it.

Anyways, if you haven't heard, there are extremely different responses to FFXIII. My point with the comparison is how two people's views can differ greatly.

Finally, if the reviewer's opinion don't matter, then who's to be decide when the criterias are met?

Reviewers opinion shouldn't matter for the score, unfortunately we are all human, and people who have no experience with separating their opinion from actual facts end up mixing them up and providing very different scores. However, this does not deny the excistence of objective criteria. There always will be critics who can not put their bias aside and rate a game, but there are a lot critics out there who do this very thing, reviewing without relying on personal opinion.
I understand your argument, though that many reviews are opinions, because like I said already many of the reviewers just express their nonreflective opinion.

Ok I understand. It was a pleasure debating/arguing with you. Thank you for your time.

sougo13:

Ok I understand. It was a pleasure debating/arguing with you. Thank you for your time.

You're welcome, it's nice to have a respectful debate on a Forum once in a while. ;-)

Arendt reminds me of a classmate of mine, Sam, who sits behind me giggle-breathing heavily into my back all of english class while mumbling things that is apparently hilarious according to his reaction to his "jokes". She doesn't remind me of him so much as she's annoying. More like her humor makes me feel awkward for her <=(.

Susan Arendt:

varun619:

Susan Arendt:

varun619:
The review was lame. I wanted in-depth analysis of how the gameplay, sound and everything else works, not 4th-grade low brow humor.

"Oh he poops star bits."
"The second player star is cute".
"Luigi go away."

It was cringe worthy. And the worst part is you used that "whatever" casual tone of your voice for reviewing the ACTUAL game and not displaying your poor stand up comedy.

It was like watching a female ScrewAttack review.

Awesome looking game though.

Did you actually read the review?

Yes, Susan. If you noticed, I was criticizing your video review, not the written one. The written one is alright. It's the video that seemed like a last minute add-on.

The video is not a review, it is a supplement. It is not meant to stand in the place of a review, merely supplement the information provided in the written review. It lacks "in-depth analysis" because it's not meant to have it.

Ah alright. Did not know that. The jokes could have been better though.

SirDerick:
To anyone who says this game sucks:

It has Yoshi in it, your argument is invalid.

Yoshi hasn't a good game since the SNES, therefore this statement is invalid.

varun619:

Susan Arendt:

varun619:

Susan Arendt:

varun619:
The review was lame. I wanted in-depth analysis of how the gameplay, sound and everything else works, not 4th-grade low brow humor.

"Oh he poops star bits."
"The second player star is cute".
"Luigi go away."

It was cringe worthy. And the worst part is you used that "whatever" casual tone of your voice for reviewing the ACTUAL game and not displaying your poor stand up comedy.

It was like watching a female ScrewAttack review.

Awesome looking game though.

Did you actually read the review?

Yes, Susan. If you noticed, I was criticizing your video review, not the written one. The written one is alright. It's the video that seemed like a last minute add-on.

The video is not a review, it is a supplement. It is not meant to stand in the place of a review, merely supplement the information provided in the written review. It lacks "in-depth analysis" because it's not meant to have it.

Ah alright. Did not know that. The jokes could have been better though.

Oh, I don't think you'll find anyone arguing that point. :)

Here's a suggestion Escapist (not just you, all video games journalists, but you're the only ones I really pay attention to).
Next time there's a Mario release, how about you let someone who isn't overly fond of Mario play it to review? How about someone who's not attached to Mario, maybe isn't that familiar with the mythos or previous games and will therefore judge the game on it's own merits as it's own game as opposed to it's merits in relation to a long lasting series.
I'm not saying you'd end up with a bad review. Said person might love it a lot. But it would be a very different one.

Just a thought.

Elesar:
Here's a suggestion Escapist (not just you, all video games journalists, but you're the only ones I really pay attention to).
Next time there's a Mario release, how about you let someone who isn't overly fond of Mario play it to review? How about someone who's not attached to Mario, maybe isn't that familiar with the mythos or previous games and will therefore judge the game on it's own merits as it's own game as opposed to it's merits in relation to a long lasting series.
I'm not saying you'd end up with a bad review. Said person might love it a lot. But it would be a very different one.

Just a thought.

The problem is, in an office with a ton of lifelong gamers, there probably aren't gonna be that many of them who aren't familiar with Mario. Not saying it can't happen, but it's pretty unlikely.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here