Why Jim Sterling's Mario Kart 7 review is bullshit.

MiracleOfSound

Fight like a Krogan
Jan 3, 2009
17,776
0
0
AzrealMaximillion said:
MiracleOfSound said:
How dare he have an opinion!

And how dare he give a game he enjoyed a better score than one that bored him!
Yes and how dare someone have and opinion about how he based his view of this game, when Jim has handed out high scores to games with the EXACT same issues (9.3 for MW3) as Mario Kart 7.

Shame on the OP. Shame for commenting on someone else's opinion and SHAME AGAIN for having an opinion that YOU don't agree with and for having the audacity of posting it online.

What a world of tragedy we live in.

Serious Face:So basically what you're saying is that Jim can have an opinion and no one can criticize him for his thought?
Actually they're not the same problems at all. In his opinion COD found ways to keep it fresh - new setpieces, mechanics, story twists, pointstreak system, smaller maps, new tech and equipment, new guns, etc etc... all stuff he found interesting.

The new stuff in Mario Kart he found stale and didn't like it.

I fail to see how this is a problem.
 

Pyramid Head

New member
Jun 19, 2011
559
0
0
Isn't calling him out on his bullshit for calling a sequel stagnant and then stating that only a few token differences make a sequel worthwhile when most of the time they could just be released as level packs just as stupid? Yes there isn't always a need for innovation, but when it comes to sequels you should add more than just a few token changes that could easily have been DLC. But then again, it's Mario. It's gotten away with releasing DLC as a sequel before.
 

The Breadcrab

New member
Mar 20, 2011
171
0
0
You guys do know he gave the latest Dynasty warriors a 6/10 for being too similar to other entries?

Also, he didn't just comment on lack of innovation. He also said the game was slow, had problems with rubber-banding, unbalanced, relied too much on luck, etc. I think those are very fair complaints, and seeing as the game is not out yet, you guys have no right to argue against it yet.
 

UberNoodle

New member
Apr 6, 2010
865
0
0
Why the heck are hardcore gamers only obsessed with 'freshness' and 'originality' when it's a Nintendo game on the chopping block, but afterward, they go straight to playing their library of yearly released sequels?

Honestly, is lack of 'freshness' was made as stoning an offence for 360 and Ps3 games as it is often made for Nintendo game, then there'd be very few games on those two systems scoring over 8.

All this smells very much like bruised egos mashed with tall poppy syndrome. I just don't connect with the gaming community any more ...
 

Furycrab

New member
Nov 21, 2011
10
0
0
I don't know if he made that review with the plans on making a follow up to his "Hate out of ten" piece where he's going to point out that he called Mario Kart 7 Average and that it is only the number that is below average.

However it feels like a cheap trick to get more clicks due to metacritic and has the logical reason equivalent to say a professor who gave all his students a failing score but then told them that the score means pass in my book!
 

Mahha

New member
May 20, 2009
105
0
0
It's just one opinion of one man (an obese man that looks like NO!). Seriously If you like the game that much open up a blog on dtoid write your own god dammed review and give the game a 12 out of 10 or whatever.
I really don't get the butthurtness of some gamers... if you enjoy the game the level of enjoyment should not be determined by how many people agree with you.
Or maybe Yathzee was right in the smash bros. brawl review.
 

Brawndo

New member
Jun 29, 2010
2,165
0
0
WHO. CARES. How does that 5/10 score impact your gaming experience at all? I've liked plenty of movies and games that critics didn't.
 

mrdude2010

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,315
0
0
Hell, I don't see why companies don't just patch and add multiplayer map packs... you don't see a team fortress 3 which is exactly like tf2 but with more hats and weapon drops, because that would be ridiculous, and valve isn't retarded.

I blame the consumers, if you guys didn't keep paying full price for 4 new multiplayer maps and a rehash of the same campaign, they wouldn't keep doing that.
 

CoL0sS

New member
Nov 2, 2010
711
0
0
That's like, uhm....your opinion maaaan.

Reviewers should be biased, but that's not always possible since everyone has preferences,Jim Sterling included. He feels that rehashing same old game is insulting to say the least and refuses to give it higher score you think it deserves.

I'll never understand why some people go ballistic over such trivial things, especially when it's their favorite popular franchises on the receiving end, when we all know it usually comes down to personal preferences. As Yahtzee once said, Jesus Christ people, big companies (Nintendo) doesn't need defending. They won't lose any sleep because random reviewer #237 gave their game a bad score, not while there's bunch of people showering them with praise and money for some-genre defining games they made 20 years ago. And neither should you.

I personally think that his review is not that far off from truth. Why? Because it's Mario Kart 7.
 

Thunderhorse31

New member
Apr 22, 2009
1,818
0
0
I was going to contribute something constructive to this thread, but I'm pretty sure I just had an aneurysm from reading some of these comments.
 

Redlin5_v1legacy

Better Red than Dead
Aug 5, 2009
48,837
0
0
...so?

Jim stated his opinion. Doesn't stop me from looking at the game and having my own thoughts on it. Hell, I might think its crap too after playing it. I don't agree with a good number of Yahtzee's reviews either. The thing is, I can ignore what bothers certain players and doesn't bother me.

[sub][sub]Also there is a lot of fanboyism in this thread >.>[/sub][/sub]
 

GeekFury

New member
Aug 20, 2009
347
0
0
itsmeyouidiot said:
http://www.destructoid.com/review-mario-kart-7-216484.phtml

Jim Sterling, once again showing what a hypocrite he is, gives Mario Kart 7 a 5 out of 10 for being a "stagnant, crawling, and indolent effort" despite being more lenient towards the Dynasty Warriors series, which is just as stagnant as this game, if not more.

But I kind of have a problem in general that the idea that being similar to previous games makes a game bad.

Let me ask you something, Jim. Does Mario Kart 7 have new tracks? Does it have new characters? Does it have various minor tweaks to the formula, such as gliding, underwater racing, and kart customization?

If you answered "yes" to any of these, you've invalidated your own argument. Simply having new levels or any sort of new content more than a reskin is enough to keep any game series fresh. If a sequel has the exact same gameplay and graphics engine as the previous game, but has new levels, then it is still just as fun as the previous entry but is new enough to warrant a purchase.

I'm not saying innovation is bad, I'm just saying that you shouldn't automatically assume that the absence of it is bad. You can have a sequel change the formula to keep things new and exciting, as long as it's true to the spirit of the original and still fun, but after a certain point, there's nowhere left to go. Mario Kart has reached the point where there really isn't much to improve, but that's not a bad thing at all. Don't act like you NEED to make a radical change with each new game to keep the series fun, that's just bullshit. You just need new levels, new characters, a graphics update, and a few other minor tweaks.
I'd give Mario Kart 7, CoD (Any pick one.) and Battlefield a 2 out of 10, thats my oppinion, am I wrong? No. Am I right? No. I'm just stating my oppinion. Deal with it.
 

jboking

New member
Oct 10, 2008
2,694
0
0
BoredRolePlayer said:
jboking said:
BoredRolePlayer said:
while pokemon still...uses...the...same...stupid...plot...point...every...game *RAGE*.
Cause the story of Black and White is so similar to the story of Red and Blue, right?
Start off in a small town
With your two friends, neither of whom is identified as your rival, but rather your friend.
Tasked to get pokemon to fill the pokedex
Not for research, but just so you could see the world
Get 8 badges
None of the plot development between getting each badge mentioned. Awesome work on the synopsis.
Stop a Evil organization who wants to you guessed rule the world by having control of pokemon by getting people to get rid of them (slightly different from team rocket, they used business, not folklore)
Except taking over the world wasn't ever brought up in red. Team Rocket basically just wanted to get/stay rich by exploiting pokemon. They were also thieves. Also, not all the members of the new organization think they're doing something wrong and it is presented as though they are fighting for pokemon's rights (which, honestly, they bring up some good arguments for).
Go and Battle the Elite 4 become the champion
Except you don't finish fighting the elite four, because your trial is interrupted by the aforementioned evil organization. You then go and fight The person who beat the champion (N), who is using a legendary pokemon, and who built a god damn castle around the elite four. Also, the other title legendary pokemon comes to give you an opportunity to catch him before you fight the new champion. Then, after you beat the new champion, the person who was ACTUALLY leading the evil organization shows up and you have to fight his team. Also, if you fail you go back to start.

Oh, and a small note, you fight the elite four in any order you want.
The only thing I liked about the plot was N (and that gym leaders had real jobs), and his involvement. I just play pokemon just to play it, the plot got me hooked a few times then the "twist" ending that N's

Wanted N to summer the dragon was so people would give up their pokemon believing he is the hero of legends and Team Plasma would have no one to stop them when they take over the world

just bummed me out.
Why? So one person was evil, big fuckin' deal. N was still the real rival in the story and actually had a different opinion on how pokemon should be treated, which was something entirely new for the series and a driving force behind the 'evil' organization.
If they make "gray" and explore not only N but Kyurem(He is so cool and looks like he has a lot of background story waiting to happen) in more depth I might change my mind.
Kyurem was the shell of the dragon combination of Resharim and Zerkom. He was the leftovers. Also, there is some suggestion that Ghetsis tried to capture him and got royally...well messed up.
Edit:Also I said plot point and I was referring to the get 8 badges, fight evil team, become the champ
If plot points were boiled down to being that concise and simple, no game would have a unique story. Hell, the new Devil May Cry game would be exactly the same as the old one:

Demon's show up where they aren't supposed to be
Dante fights the demons after being informed about their plans to take over the world
Dante tries to find the big demon boss
Dante kills the big demon boss and saves the world
 

DiMono

New member
Mar 18, 2010
837
0
0
I'm sorry, but if all a game has to offer is new levels, then no, it is not worth purchasing. That makes it not a new game, but an expansion pack. A new game is, by definition, "new." If the engine is the same, and the mechanics are the same, and the interface is the same, then it's the same game just wearing different clothes. If there's nowhere for a franchise to go in terms of further innovation, stop trying to keep it alive!

Best example I can think of to help my case here is Diablo 2. They sold an expansion pack called Lord of Destruction. It added an extra 25% to the length of the game, with dozens of new enemies, two new character types, 50% more weapon types, and an almost complete reworking of the combat mechanics, and it was an expansion pack! The engine was the same, and there was no innovation, and Blizzard knew better than to try to market it as a brand new game because it wasn't one.

If it doesn't innovate over the previous incarnation in any way, then it's not a new game. Period.
 

WaderiAAA

Derp Master
Aug 11, 2009
869
0
0
To me it always seems like there are extremely few long-running franchises that make significant innovations from game to game, and people tend to over-look this in franchises they love (I for one have never complained over lack of innovation in Zelda) while if you thought the other games in the franchise were pretty good, but nothing special, then the lack of innovation bothers you.

Personally, I'd rather see innovation come in the form of new franchises or even stand alone games than within the franchises themselves. Sure, they could be from the same developer in addition to their other franchises, but when you make a sequel I'm fine if it is like the earlier games, but polished and with new levels.
 

WaderiAAA

Derp Master
Aug 11, 2009
869
0
0
DiMono said:
I'm sorry, but if all a game has to offer is new levels, then no, it is not worth purchasing. That makes it not a new game, but an expansion pack. A new game is, by definition, "new." If the engine is the same, and the mechanics are the same, and the interface is the same, then it's the same game just wearing different clothes. If there's nowhere for a franchise to go in terms of further innovation, stop trying to keep it alive!

Best example I can think of to help my case here is Diablo 2. They sold an expansion pack called Lord of Destruction. It added an extra 25% to the length of the game, with dozens of new enemies, two new character types, 50% more weapon types, and an almost complete reworking of the combat mechanics, and it was an expansion pack! The engine was the same, and there was no innovation, and Blizzard knew better than to try to market it as a brand new game because it wasn't one.

If it doesn't innovate over the previous incarnation in any way, then it's not a new game. Period.
I think there are different standards for Mario Kart games because they apply to new gamers (like kids) as well, and they are likely to buy the newest console. While Mario Kart DS is playable on a 3DS, people are going to buy their kids a new game, not a level pack for a game on the previous console.
 

kuzaro

New member
Nov 22, 2009
24
0
0
The difference is mario kart games on wii sucks, modern warfare games are very fun, dynasty warriors games are quite fun, hence 5, 9.5, 7 respectively.