Super Mario Galaxy, Game of the Year?!

[Arauna]

I have said it before I will say it again. Gamestop is the worst video game company ever, but enough of that lets talk about Galaxy.

Game of the Year: http://www.gamespot.com/best-of/gameoftheyear/index.html?page=2
(says gamestop and gamespot.)

We have yet to see a review on the game, but here's one from someone who actually played though the game not just beat it at 60 stars and quit. I am going to do it something like gamepro breaking down catagories.

Graphics: The game basically looks like Super Mario 64, slightly updated and a little bit better lighting, so the graphics to say the least arn't very impressive, but nintendo said they were making a game for gameplay, and what should you give a game that looks like it should have been on a system 2 generations ago? 5/10 and thats being generious.

5/10

Gameplay: Poor graphics are made up by game play right nintedo? The game plays with you going though small planets until you find a hollow star and it propells you to the next small planet where you get though another challenge until you reach the star. All of the levels in galaxy are very small and leave you desiring a nice wide open level at which you can explore and play on. The games gravity system is obviously based off a random number generator. you can be on a plate shape object that holds you to it. Mario is able to run from the top to the bottom of the object, but you can also jump and never know where your going to land, You can jump from the middle of the top side of the object and land at the middle of the bottom, all off a single backflip jump. Well as your playing though the game the difficult curve swings back an forth like the game is up on a lie detector test. The game is easy, very easy, for the first 75 stars or so. You can beat the game at 60 stars, so whats the use playing after that? Well any retard can get 60 stars in the first 4 hours of play. So, your telling me I am going to pay 50 dollars US for a game that is done in 4 hours? No of course not lets see whats in for the rest of this game. Well then it becomes impossibly hard to get stars, and you get to about 110, and your comtimplating hawking your wii for smokes in order to claim down for the fustration. Everyone loves a good challenge, if its a task, but who wants to collect 100 coins in all the levels they have already beaten, and if you die start over. The game also claims to be 2 player. I played with my girlfriend for a while, she kept getting mad becase everytime we'd sit down to play, she'd be mario, and I'd be the magic hand jacking off in the corner. Then, fall a sleep, and she'd turn the game off. So, claiming to be 2 player is a huge let down. It's more like a second person can help you if they LOVE watching Mario, and can stand sitting there though it without actually doing anything. Gameplay (not counting controls) 7/10 (average mario game) -1 for claiming to be 2 player. 6/10

Controls/Camera Angle: You will get use to never knowing what your actually doing. The camera angles in this game are so poor. Sometime the game goes to route and wants to make it feel like your in a 2D game and that your climbing walls, and the almost move like you are, but then the game changes into planets and you must run arround them and there is this magically line in the middle that your controls change and all your directions reverse. The camera angles never really allow the player to know whats arround you or where your suppose to go, I suppose they do this so that you are not able to see how shitty and small the levels are. 3/10 yes, they are that bad. If you want mario to do anything, anything, shake the wii-mote.

Replay Value: sadly with the controls this is also very low. 1/10

Overall: 5/10

Now, just because your dying to play your Wii and this is one of the better games on the wii does not make this game of the year. We all know that they have not released a game on the wii that makes it worth having. (Zelda doesn't count it was for the GC, and Wii sports are mini games....go to an arcade)

Super Mario Galaxy is it really game of the year?

 

[qaqa1]

WHAT the hell is everyones obsession with graphics really. Mario galaxy is a good game in no way game of the year but you seem to slash it cause it isnt flashy enough, covered with ribbons streamers and realistic gore. Games are made to be fun so in my opinion gameplay and storyline are the only thing i play a game for. Graphics only matter to me if the main character is a blue cubve fighting off evil red spheres or something. well im off topic now, JUST STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT GRAPHICS, Especialy on the Wii a system made solely for gameplay elements.

As well the controls in mario galaxy seem quite easy and the camera is fine maby your just some cross eyed two fingered prik pissed off at life because you cant do everything like a normal person. There are quite a few good games on the Wii a few new games and a bunch of old games you can download to your system.

A few good games for the Wii are, Zack and Wiki, Fire Emblem, ohhh play metal slug anthology haha that game is so much fun ive play it before on other systems but having them all in one is just endless hours of fun.

Ive only played mario galaxy a bit and you cant get sixty stars in 4 hours no matter how hard you try but i also liked this game becasue of the music which was pretty epic at some points.

Im bored now ill yell at you more later for being so stupid.

 

[daemonire]

You write with a bit of vitriol, though I suppose you were gunning to support your premise so...

Regardless, I can't say I disagree with the bulk of your review. My friend purchased SMG because well, "hurray mario". She wasn't expecting anything much, because the buy was pre-hype; we hadn't seen any commentary about it at the time, nor was there a SMG banner ad on every last corner of the internet (looking at YOU, assassin's creed). We played through enough stars that we were able to do the final level and, well havn't gotten around to finishing yet.
We were fine with the two player setup because she actually does "LOVE watching Mario, and can stand sitting there though it without actually doing anything". It was just that... well to start, we were getting every star in a level before moving on; but by the end of the second set of levels we just frankly got bored. But there were levels, (usually the one-star levels) that were interesting and creative... but those ones by and large were also rather short, which made the normal levels feel like a chore.

About at this point, we noticed revews of this game and we were -baffled-. There are alot of 10/10 marks being handed out there; metacritic shows that the lowest mark ANYONE gave the game is a 9/10, and the score averaged out to a 97. Let's not quibble over my feelings regarding the level design and gameplay- those could be chalked up to my opinions, and perhaps others felt far more positively than I about these things. I'd point out the planets in galaxy have 'invisble line' gravity and not physics gravity, thus I was not at all impressed with the entire premise... but we'll agree to disagree. But I can't for the life of me reconcile a perfect mark with the minuta that is SMG's graphics and control/camera.

My guess is that people don't have thier wii hooked up to an hdtv, but when you do I have to say it's just plain unplesant to the eye. The levels can be as bright and colorful and cleverly animated as possible, but if they're FUZZY and unplesant then well there's a problem! The controls an camera were irritating; my opinion is that they're only palatable due to the extreme low-difficulty of much of the game. I mean; the game is generally so easy that even blind or confused movements often won't result in your death. But that doesn't change that they are -bad- and shouldn't be rewarded with critical acclaim.

Does my opinion not matter because I didn't get all 120 stars? Well, the game's supposedly perfect, I'm on the last boss, and I havn't been motivated to finish it. I don't see why I should continue doing something I find unplesant for 3x as long before other people find my belief credible. Oh and; obviously I wouldn't consider it game of the year (though, go ahead and give it that accolade, I think the term's stupid anyway)
I'll close by paraphrasing one of Yahtzee's endings that echos my feelings about SMG, "It's not BAD, but I won't blame you if you shoot it out of a cannon into the sun."

 

[AnGeL.SLayer]

WHAT the hell is everyones obsession with graphics really. Mario galaxy is a good game in no way game of the year but you seem to slash it cause it isnt flashy enough, covered with ribbons streamers and realistic gore. Games are made to be fun so in my opinion gameplay and storyline are the only thing i play a game for. Graphics only matter to me if the main character is a blue cubve fighting off evil red spheres or something. well im off topic now, JUST STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT GRAPHICS, Especialy on the Wii a system made solely for gameplay elements.

Graphics mean a lot in this day and age. Just because a game will run and still be fun with blocks dosn't mean we should ignore the technology that we could be using to make the experience more life like. Though I must say anyone looking for a mario game to be 'realistic' is looking in the wrong place. It woulnd't be a mario game if it didnt have it's orgional look and feel. That is a big part of what makes it mario. The Wii having horrible graphics in it's game's has no excuse. They can't go, "well the games are still fun...right?" The technology to produce life-like games is at their fingertips and they should be using it. Games are mean't to be whole deal packages, graphics, gameplay, control and so on. You wouldn't buy an object that was half ass done would you? Your not getting your money worth and the companies who mass produce this are laughing their butts all the way to the bank. They got away with murder on this and boy am i sure they know it.

But back on topic! Your review was..alright. I say alright because no one cares about numerical based scoreing. You need to think of something new. Sorry but that times have changed. You did know what you where talking about, unlike most reviwers, so hurray! lol ^_^ I do agree with the gameplay/controls. Its like they are trying to make you want to fling yourself off a building. They have this motion sensor technoloy that they arent ready to have the power to control. They have no imingation to make this work in the long run i think. Moving your arm up and down or from side to side can get boring after so long. Hench all the attachments for the remote. They yet have to make a connection between real gameplay and the motions to be made. good job and keep writing! ^_^

and no it shouldnt be game of the year, far from it. silly bastards. hehe we shall send mindless zombies to their houses. >: )

 

[alexhayter86]

Mario doesn't look fantastic on my 50 incher HDTV, but it looks beautiful on a screen half that size. The overall visual aesthetics are some of the best I've seen in a game; what it loses in polygons it makes up for it vibrancy and the tangible feel of being in a 3-dimensional world. We take 3D games for granted now: Super Mario 64 gave birth to them and now Mario Galaxy shows us new ways to think of them.

You can't really get a Mario game and expect it to be flawless. I remember, back in the day, when I first tried Mario 64, I was wowed by the visuals and sense of concreteness you had in the environments. Just running around the world was appealing. After a while though, I started to realise how the controls often hindered your progress through the game: swimming was impossible, punching enemies was inconveniant, and manuevering Mario through obstacles and platforms felt like trying to hold onto a slippery eel.

But ultimately, in spite of its flaws, it was a fantastic game. Galaxy is also a fantastic game, and I feel is better than the original because it addresses many (but not all) of the control issues that plagued the original incarnate.

Personally, it's one of the best games I've ever played, flaws and all.

 

[Swenglish]

Maybe SMG caught the "Halo 3 hype-disease" and so every reviewer is so happy that Nintendo made a sequel to a Super Mario title that they don't really care about the flaws about the game. Now that's just me talking, but that's my impression of the whole "SMG-situation"

I think it's a decent Mario title. Nintendo has like always been brave enough to experient with the level design, so they set the whole thing in space. I reckon that Nintendo deserves credit for this, but it doesn't make the game really,really fun to play. And I get the feeling that Nintendo could have used the Wii's potential so much more than they have.

It's definetly not a bad game, far from it, but it's not the game of the year.

 

[briantw]

I have said it before I will say it again. Gamestop is the worst video game company ever, but enough of that lets talk about Galaxy.

Game of the Year: http://www.gamespot.com/best-of/gameoftheyear/index.html?page=2
(says gamestop and gamespot.)

You do realize that GameSpot and GameStop are separate companies, right? GameSpot's GotY awards are presented by GameStop, which basically means that GameStop sent in a check so that their logo could be plastered all over the awards page. That's all there is to it.

We have yet to see a review on the game, but here's one from someone who actually played though the game not just beat it at 60 stars and quit. I am going to do it something like gamepro breaking down catagories.

http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/supermario128/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;review

You mean that review, where GameSpot gave it a 9.5 and an editor's choice award? After all, seeing as this is GameSpot's GotY, their reviews are the only ones that actually matter.

Graphics: The game basically looks like Super Mario 64, slightly updated and a little bit better lighting, so the graphics to say the least arn't very impressive, but nintendo said they were making a game for gameplay, and what should you give a game that looks like it should have been on a system 2 generations ago? 5/10 and thats being generious.

5/10

It's clear you've never played either game if you honestly think Mario Galaxy looks like an N64 game. The ridiculousness of saying so just goes beyond my comprehension and logic, and I'm honestly appalled that even an obvious PS3 or 360 fanboy would be stupid enough to say so.

Gameplay: Poor graphics are made up by game play right nintedo? The game plays with you going though small planets until you find a hollow star and it propells you to the next small planet where you get though another challenge until you reach the star. All of the levels in galaxy are very small and leave you desiring a nice wide open level at which you can explore and play on.

Again, it's seeming like you've only watched a few videos and are basing your opinions on that. If you did actually play the game, you'd know that there are at least a dozen levels that are pretty large, and those levels don't necessarily have any of the little planets for you to hop around on.

The games gravity system is obviously based off a random number generator. you can be on a plate shape object that holds you to it. Mario is able to run from the top to the bottom of the object, but you can also jump and never know where your going to land, You can jump from the middle of the top side of the object and land at the middle of the bottom, all off a single backflip jump.

It's usually pretty obvious where you are going to land. If you jump too close to another planetoid, you're going to be sucked onto it.

Well as your playing though the game the difficult curve swings back an forth like the game is up on a lie detector test. The game is easy, very easy, for the first 75 stars or so. You can beat the game at 60 stars, so whats the use playing after that?

That's like asking what's the use of playing Halo 3 on Legendary if you can beat it on easy in five hours. You do it for the challenge, but you're apparently too daft to understand that. You just can't help some people, I suppose.

And also, you get unlockable content for beating the game with all 120 stars, and then beating it again with all 120 stars with a new character, which is a pretty good incentive to do so.

Well any retard can get 60 stars in the first 4 hours of play. So, your telling me I am going to pay 50 dollars US for a game that is done in 4 hours? No of course not lets see whats in for the rest of this game.

See my above point. It seems that any retard would know that the true point of getting all 120 stars is to be challenged.

Well then it becomes impossibly hard to get stars, and you get to about 110, and your comtimplating hawking your wii for smokes in order to claim down for the fustration. Everyone loves a good challenge, if its a task, but who wants to collect 100 coins in all the levels they have already beaten, and if you die start over.

It's apparent you're not much of a fan of platformers. If you were, you'd know that pretty much every platformer ever forces you to do things like that to get a 100% completion on the game. It's kind of like regenerating health in shooters. One game introduces it, and suddenly every other shooter mimics it, taking away all of the challenge from the genre.

The game also claims to be 2 player. I played with my girlfriend for a while, she kept getting mad becase everytime we'd sit down to play, she'd be mario, and I'd be the magic hand jacking off in the corner. Then, fall a sleep, and she'd turn the game off. So, claiming to be 2 player is a huge let down. It's more like a second person can help you if they LOVE watching Mario, and can stand sitting there though it without actually doing anything. Gameplay (not counting controls) 7/10 (average mario game) -1 for claiming to be 2 player. 6/10

This is why you read reviews. Nintendo obviously just threw in the two-player mode as a bonus, not a feature. The back of the box even explains what the second player does, so I don't see why you're so disappointed.

Controls/Camera Angle: You will get use to never knowing what your actually doing. The camera angles in this game are so poor. Sometime the game goes to route and wants to make it feel like your in a 2D game and that your climbing walls, and the almost move like you are, but then the game changes into planets and you must run arround them and there is this magically line in the middle that your controls change and all your directions reverse. The camera angles never really allow the player to know whats arround you or where your suppose to go, I suppose they do this so that you are not able to see how shitty and small the levels are. 3/10 yes, they are that bad. If you want mario to do anything, anything, shake the wii-mote.

You must just suck at the game, because no one else I've talked to has had any of those problems. My only issue with the controls is that, on occasion, the camera gets wonky, but these occasions are in the minority.

Replay Value: sadly with the controls this is also very low. 1/10

You sucking at a game =/= no replay value.

Overall: 5/10

Now, just because your dying to play your Wii and this is one of the better games on the wii does not make this game of the year. We all know that they have not released a game on the wii that makes it worth having. (Zelda doesn't count it was for the GC, and Wii sports are mini games....go to an arcade)

Wow. You really are an idiot if you think that there isn't a good game on the Wii. Just because you don't like the system doesn't mean that everything on it sucks. Metroid Prime 3 is great, Zack & Wiki is wholly original, Super Mario Galaxy is one of the best games this generation, and Wii Sports is a hell of a lot of fun if you have friends.

Super Mario Galaxy is it really game of the year?

It's the GameSpot Game of the Year. It may or may not be the IGN Game of the Year.

My personal Game of the Year is Portal, but Mario Galaxy would certainly be in the top three.

Again, maybe you should stop with the fanboy ranting and just learn to enjoy games on all systems. That's what a real gamer does.

 

[eggdog14]

Graphics: The game basically looks like Super Mario 64, slightly updated and a little bit better lighting, so the graphics to say the least arn't very impressive, but nintendo said they were making a game for gameplay, and what should you give a game that looks like it should have been on a system 2 generations ago? 5/10 and thats being generious.

I don't think there's an easy way to say this, but. . . you're wrong. The graphics in SMG could not be better. Maybe they'd look a bit nicer in 1080p, but no amount of polygons can make that game look prettier than it already does. If it did, it would be losing the feel that defines Mario games.

I'm really tired of people obsessing over graphics. Yes, explosions are nice, but there are alot of games that, without mind-blowing graphics, would be mediocre at best.

Case in Point; In the shooter genre, try comparing Half-life 2 to Crysis. Half-life had "THE BEST" graphics of its time when it came out, backed up by a fantastic physics engine which completely changed the gameplay. However, if you had a sub-par computer, and couldn't play with every ounce of particles and lighting, the game was still exceptional. Crysis on the other hand, (and also "FEAR") is quite the opposite. Once you strip away the graphical wizardry, you have a game that's entirely derivative, and, well, BORING.

If a game can't stand on it's own without **fantacularrr!!** graphics, then the designers aren't trying hard enough.

I'm actually glad the Wii isn't a graphical powerhouse. This way, designers have to focus on the games, not the graphics.

To prove this, i'll conclude by saying that Super Mario Galaxy is the single highest critically-reviewed console game ever made.

LINK http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/wii/supermariogalaxy


***I just got a Wii this christmas, along with Mario and Zelda, i'll be posting my thoughts/reviews on the system and games shortly.**


ps: Arauna, you spelled 'generous' wrong.

 

[RentCavalier]

Plus, you should understand that reviewers compare the graphics of games to other games ON THAT SYSTEM, which would effectively give SMG a rather big boost in the graphics department considering its about the best the Wii can do.

 

[mintfresh]

Plus, you should understand that reviewers compare the graphics of games to other games ON THAT SYSTEM, which would effectively give SMG a rather big boost in the graphics department considering its about the best the Wii can do.

Not the best the Wii can do, just some of the best so far. No console will have achieved the best it can do this early in it's lifespan, maybe another 1-2 years and we'll get there.

 

[daemonire]

Nobody's going to tear MY comments apart? (pout) Why does Arauna get all the hate? (sniff)

I guess that's what happens when Arauna says, "This thing that you all love SUCKS!" and I say, "Well gawsh, it just seems to lack appeal to me."

I will add this though: I was a bit put off by the sheer inundation of extra lives I got. Maybe I was expected to die frequently? but as I wasn't, it just seemed out of place. Granted, the mario series hasn't expected you to be able to run out of lives since... Super Mario 2 or 3 on the NES, but I must have had about 50 extra lives by the end of each session.

(shrug) I'm nitpicking I guess, but they could just give you infinate lives and get it over with. Either that or make it harder, but challange ain't nintendo's M.O., eh? I merely suggest they cut the foreplay... Hell, just make the bubble from the observatory rescue you whenever you fall off a ledge even in the levels! Because dying and starting over isn't fun right? Ahhm- I should note that I'm not trolling or being sarcastic here; we can talk rationally right? ^^;

 

[briantw]

Nobody's going to tear MY comments apart? (pout) Why does Arauna get all the hate? (sniff)

I guess that's what happens when Arauna says, "This thing that you all love SUCKS!" and I say, "Well gawsh, it just seems to lack appeal to me."

There's a difference between criticizing and being a dick. You were the former. The TC was the latter. Plus, he honestly doesn't even sound like he played the game. He sounded like he watched a few low-resolution videos and wrote a shitty review based on that.

I will add this though: I was a bit put off by the sheer inundation of extra lives I got. Maybe I was expected to die frequently? but as I wasn't, it just seemed out of place. Granted, the mario series hasn't expected you to be able to run out of lives since... Super Mario 2 or 3 on the NES, but I must have had about 50 extra lives by the end of each session.

Yeah, you do get lives very easily, but you also got back to four (or is it five?) when you load a saved game, so unless you play the game through in one sitting, this really isn't a major issue.

Then again, as you said, Mario games have never been overly difficult. Their claim to fame is more in the superb level design and gameplay (which all of them do have) than in the overall challenge. That said, the last three games will make you work pretty hard if you want to get all 120 stars.

 

[Shadow Link]

Seriously guys, if you are all fused about graphics and violence, get a gun and shoot yourself in the leg, I hope the blood looks real because if it doesn't you must be on powder cocaine.

It is no way about the graphics, but to me I think the graphics are still very good, not that I really care, it doesn't make the game bad any more then good, but it does make it cheaper to buy, takes less time to produce just for those extra pixel dots and extra glare.

Oh this game definitely gets 10/10 BECAUSE OF THE REAL-TIME REFLECTIONS ON THE BLOOD! sorry I love using that joke.

My point is basic, there are too many action games that only focus on graphics, so for those games to take a step by looking different and not being gory seems "out" of the your expectations by far, and of course the Wii cannot support the best graphics, that's why I have one because I don't have a thousand bucks to buy a PS3.

 

[laikenf]

Someone's a bit bitter today. You gotta ask you're self though, what do YOU think is game of the year, because to me this seems to be more of a rant from a very frustrated person than a review. I can understand you not liking the game but by no means is SMG a bad game. But do not worry, other sites have yet to announce their winner, maybe YOU'RE favorite game will win in one of them (which one is it, bejeweled 2? )

 

[Ranzel]

My opinion on SMG is that it is wholly, and entirely, to easy. The fact that green mushrooms rain down upon you near constantly doesn't even matter to me, because I never lost a life playing this game. Not a single time.

Does the fact that I never lost a life instantly make this game VERY easy? Well, yes. You could make an argument that I'm a hardcore Mario/platformer fan, but I'm not. To be perfectly honest, the level of difficulty in this game was actually embarrassing. I'd play through a level with a friend, near never even get HIT, let alone lose a life, and they'd ask if I ever stopped playing. Then I let them play, and they understood my "godliness" playing the game.

I understand and agree- Mario games have never been about mind numbing puzzles or heart pounding action. I don't remeber Mario games ever being quite this easy, though.

 

[HappyZealot]

It's their opinion, not yours. Also, this "review" of yours sounds like it's based on watching a few videos instead of actually playing the game.

 

[Arauna]

You do realize that GameSpot and GameStop are separate companies, right? GameSpot's GotY awards are presented by GameStop, which basically means that GameStop sent in a check so that their logo could be plastered all over the awards page. That's all there is to it.

Of course I do, and if you actually read it you will see it's brought to you by Gamestop.

http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/supermario128/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;review

You mean that review, where GameSpot gave it a 9.5 and an editor's choice award? After all, seeing as this is GameSpot's GotY, their reviews are the only ones that actually matter.

Yes, but is the game really a 9.5? And Game of the Year? Seriously.

It's clear you've never played either game if you honestly think Mario Galaxy looks like an N64 game. The ridiculousness of saying so just goes beyond my comprehension and logic, and I'm honestly appalled that even an obvious PS3 or 360 fanboy would be stupid enough to say so.

If you have played it on an HDTV just like everyone else saying the graphics are horrible, then you'd agree. Quite being cheep by a new TV. Also, in the US at least, in February 2009 (maybe 08, but I believe it's 09) they are doing away with analog broadcast, to open up the ability to have better wi fi (broadcasting on the waves they were previously using.)

Again, it's seeming like you've only watched a few videos and are basing your opinions on that. If you did actually play the game, you'd know that there are at least a dozen levels that are pretty large, and those levels don't necessarily have any of the little planets for you to hop around on.

I wish you were correct, but most of the levels are plagued with you are unsure if you can really go in a direction, because you don't know where they decided to remove the ground and you fall into their black hole. None of the levels are anywhere near the size of the levels of SM64. Yes, some are larger then others, but thats like assuming the first person you have sex with you marry because its better then nothing.

It's usually pretty obvious where you are going to land. If you jump too close to another planetoid, you're going to be sucked onto it.

I like your use of the word planetoid. And, I meant on the same object.

See my above point. It seems that any retard would know that the true point of getting all 120 stars is to be challenged.

Yes, but it goes from entertaining to mindless repeative task and it becomes more of an endurance. Can you stand to re-do all the levels over and over and over to get all 100 coins, because your on a moving platform and if you pass one you start over. Yes, I hate the purple comet.

Well then it becomes impossibly hard to get stars, and you get to about 110, and your comtimplating hawking your wii for smokes in order to claim down for the fustration. Everyone loves a good challenge, if its a task, but who wants to collect 100 coins in all the levels they have already beaten, and if you die start over.

It's apparent you're not much of a fan of platformers. If you were, you'd know that pretty much every platformer ever forces you to do things like that to get a 100% completion on the game. It's kind of like regenerating health in shooters. One game introduces it, and suddenly every other shooter mimics it, taking away all of the challenge from the genre.

The game also claims to be 2 player. I played with my girlfriend for a while, she kept getting mad becase everytime we'd sit down to play, she'd be mario, and I'd be the magic hand jacking off in the corner. Then, fall a sleep, and she'd turn the game off. So, claiming to be 2 player is a huge let down. It's more like a second person can help you if they LOVE watching Mario, and can stand sitting there though it without actually doing anything. Gameplay (not counting controls) 7/10 (average mario game) -1 for claiming to be 2 player. 6/10

This is why you read reviews. Nintendo obviously just threw in the two-player mode as a bonus, not a feature. The back of the box even explains what the second player does, so I don't see why you're so disappointed.

You must just suck at the game, because no one else I've talked to has had any of those problems. My only issue with the controls is that, on occasion, the camera gets wonky, but these occasions are in the minority.

Your not very far in the game are you? Yes, the first 75 stars make everything easy, but after the game decides that it wants to pick up the difficulty level it becomes obvious that the controls were made by retards that only know how to shake a controller.

Wow. You really are an idiot if you think that there isn't a good game on the Wii. Just because you don't like the system doesn't mean that everything on it sucks. Metroid Prime 3 is great, Zack & Wiki is wholly original, Super Mario Galaxy is one of the best games this generation, and Wii Sports is a hell of a lot of fun if you have friends.

Wii sports, go to an arcade make new friends. Metroid is tired and old, but if you enjoy it thats good for you I am glad you found a better use for your Wii other then a paperweight. AND I'll be nice and leave the Zack thing alone.



Ending: Thank you for taking your time out to respond. I agree with you on Portals. That is easily the game of the year, but an sung hero in the game community.


---

And to the first guy you replied "Pants on head retarded" comes to mind.

---

I also wrote the review at about 5am, and it could use to be touched up.

 

[METALDRAG0N]

Well ive got this game and i disagree with the OP.

Graphically it couldnt be much better really. Now before youflame me ill just let you know im bearing in mind 2 things...

1. What the Wii is capable of graphically.

2. The Art Style of Mario.

So Graphics wise im happy.

Gamepaly wise i love it too the level designs is imaginative and interesting. It is true that in places it is short but its meant to be. Also i too noticed the sheer number of free lives that could just be found, this i dont mind too much tho as it all gets reset when you switch off. Overall i enjoyed this game and consider it a worthy addition to the mario franchise.

 

[Evil Lawyer]

Personally, I find this game to be quite wonderful. I would put Portal over it any day as Game of the Year, but as a Mario title it has much to be proud of.

First of all, I will agree that the main worlds in this game are a bit on the easy side. As you do not need all 120 stars to complete the game, it is rather easy to miss the more challenging bits if you do not attempt to collect all the stars. The stand-alone galaxies offer unique challenges that usually are more difficult than the main worlds, and are also very creative and entertaining to play though. The Challenge galaxies provide you with that ever classic urge to snap your controller in half, but also that huge wave of satisfaction once you've beat the damn world. And then you come to the purple coin challenges. There are moments you will laugh, and then there are moments when you will cry and send the Wii through your TV with one throw.

As far as the 2 player option goes, this is actually an ideal concept. I happened to play this game with my younger cousin (much younger in fact; he's currently 5 and I was playing my brand new Atari when I was 5) and he enjoyed being the star more then he did Mario. He didn't quite grasp a few boss fights, so being MArio for him was not the best option. But he enjoyed the ability to help me by holding back enemies and shooting stars at things, and I think that this is where the game succeeds the most. It's aimed at everyone. I was able to enjoy the platforming and frustating challenges of trying to collect 100 purple coins in 3:00 mins while every step I take makes the floor beneath me disappear, and my younger cousin got to enjoy helping out his older cousin and feel like one of the big kids.

I'll agree that billing this as a 2 player super-adventure would be wrong, but the fact that your mum could probably handle being the star is what makes this game so appealing. You don't have to be a super-hardcore-game-freak to enjoy it.

Another reason I loved this game is it asks to to think outside the box of possibilties. Much like Portal, the physics of the game make you ponder a bit before you take your next step. There are several moments in SMG where you will be running on the floor, and then with a jump you'll be on the wall or the ceiling. As mentioned before, a misplaced jump will send you hurtling toward your death, whereas a calculated one will land you on the next plantoid, safely in its gravitational pull. It's not as abstract as Portal asks you to be, but SMG still bends your mind with some of the things it asks you to do.

This game, like Halo 3 or CoD4 or BioShock, is not the second coming of Christ like some reviewers claim it to be. But it is also one of few more recent Mario games that has features for everyone of all ages/skill levels. Anyone can push a button to hold back a goomba, but not everyone would understand Super Paper Mario, Smash Bros. or Strikers. I mean, seriously, imagine one of your relatives who has never played a videogame before trying to instanly comprehend everything you can do in a current Mario game. I'm sure they'd take pressing A while aiming at the bad guy over trying to decide which Pixl/Character combination to use in Super Paper Mario.