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

Balobo

New member
Nov 30, 2009
476
0
0
Kopikatsu said:
Balobo said:
Kopikatsu said:
He said it was above average and recommended it. What more do you want from him?
Very very very slightly above average. He gave a stagnant piece of shit (MW3) a 9.5. He's not a legitimate source for good reviews.
20% above average is not 'Very very very slightly'. It's 20%.

Anyway, Modern Warfare 3 got a 9 because it defines the FPS genre. And it does. It got an additional .5 because it wasn't terrible.

The majority of MW3's score was from being genre defining.
But why the hell does he criticize Mario Kart 7 for being stagnant, but then turns around and praises other developers for rehashing the same games over and over again? Double standards I say. Does Mario Kart 7 not define the kart racing genre?
 

Kopikatsu

New member
May 27, 2010
4,924
0
0
Balobo said:
Kopikatsu said:
Balobo said:
Kopikatsu said:
He said it was above average and recommended it. What more do you want from him?
Very very very slightly above average. He gave a stagnant piece of shit (MW3) a 9.5. He's not a legitimate source for good reviews.
20% above average is not 'Very very very slightly'. It's 20%.

Anyway, Modern Warfare 3 got a 9 because it defines the FPS genre. And it does. It got an additional .5 because it wasn't terrible.

The majority of MW3's score was from being genre defining.
But why the hell does he criticize Mario Kart 7 for being stagnant, but then turns around and praises other developers for rehashing the same games over and over again? Double standards I say. Does Mario Kart 7 not define the kart racing genre?
Did you read the review of MK7 and MW3, or are you just taking the OP's word for it? =x

Other fresh additions include gliding equipment and underwater sections. Although these new elements provide something aesthetically different, they don't actually change the game. Underwater racing is a little slower and air gliding is a little floatier, but their impact on the gameplay is minimal at best, appearing merely as vapid contrivances that exist to provide the illusion of variety rather than actually altering the core experience.

Fact of the matter is that kart racers are old news, and this is one of the most routine kart racers on the market. Even series like Dynasty Warriors and Madden boast fresher features with each iteration than those found in Mario Kart 7, and as someone who usually has no problem with sticking to a winning formula, not even I can justify how formulaic Mario Kart has become. Nintendo has truly played it safe with Mario Kart 7, but it's done so to such a degree that the game could be accused of cowardice.
Are basically what he found wrong with the game. The rest of the review is positives. (Like how the 3D is actually really good and not horribly mind-raping like most of the other 3DS games)

Edit: I can't say for certain because the game isn't out yet, but is he wrong? Each Mario Kart game is just different maps with 1-3 new power ups. If the 3DS did DLC, this would be it.
 

Naranja797

New member
Oct 3, 2011
17
0
0
Guys. Call the hell down. It is Mario Kart. Do you like Mario Kart? Good. Go buy Mario Kart 7, because you are content with the new tracks and such. I don't believe Jim ever said that MK7 (wow, that looks like Mortal Kombat 7, doesn't it?)is bad. He said it was AVERAGE. He gave MW3 a 9.5 yes, but notice the disclaimer "Whether you like what it does is a matter of personal taste, but the skill and experience brought to the table is hard to refute. Modern Warfare 3 gets it done, and it gets it done damn well". He could very well put the same thing on MK7. Because his point still stands. Jim Sterling evidently doesn't like Mario Kart. He clearly has a bit of a thing for more action-oriented games. That is because it is HIS opinion.
 

rebus_forever

New member
Jan 28, 2009
376
0
0
BreakfastMan said:
Jim Sterling has an opinion different from ours? He gave a game he didn't much like a 5 out of 10? Blasphemy! People aren't supposed to have different opinions! He is the most unprofessional reviewer out there, contaminating all his reviews with his icky bias. He must be fired and publicly shamed. Giving a game something different from the Metacritic average, the nerve...

EDIT: Okay, I have read more of this thread, and I think this video needs to be posted:



this is my favourite jim video ever, thank you
 

Balobo

New member
Nov 30, 2009
476
0
0
Kopikatsu said:
Are basically what he found wrong with the game. The rest of the review is positives. (Like how the 3D is actually really good and not horribly mind-raping like most of the other 3DS games)
If it's all positives then why didn't he give it at least an 8? He gives mediocre scores to high quality games?

Kopikatsu said:
Edit: I can't say for certain because the game isn't out yet, but is he wrong? Each Mario Kart game is just different maps with 1-3 new power ups. If the 3DS did DLC, this would be it.
But the same is with MW3 :) And he gave that one a 9.5.
 

Kopikatsu

New member
May 27, 2010
4,924
0
0
Balobo said:
If it's all positives then why didn't he give it at least an 8? He gives mediocre scores to high quality games?
How do you know it's a high quality game? It isn't even out yet. Besides, if it's practically the same as it's predecessors, then yeah, it's average.

Balobo said:
But the same is with MW3 :) And he gave that one a 9.5.
Not really. Each Call of Duty game does more than just throw in some new guns and maps. I can't go into too much detail because I don't play the games, but MW3 has a lot of things that MW2 doesn't like the kits and junk. Someone who is more into that game will have to explain it.

Regardless, there is literally no difference between Mario Kart 6 and 7 other than like 3 powers, a few new maps, and two drivers. Except they removed two drivers to make room for those two new ones, so it ends up being practically the same. Also, they removed the ability to blow up balloons using the mic, among some other things.

Edit: And that's the problem Jim had with it. He doesn't care if each game in a series is largely the same, but there is a difference between being formulaic and being stagnant. Modern Warfare is formulaic, Mario Kart is stagnant.
 

Balobo

New member
Nov 30, 2009
476
0
0
Kopikatsu said:
How do you know it's a high quality game? It isn't even out yet. Besides, if it's practically the same as it's predecessors, then yeah, it's average.
The predecessors WERE high quality =/ Obviously other reviews are saying that this is a very high quality product. People who managed to get the game are also saying that. It's a high quality product. End of.

Kopikatsu said:
Not really. Each Call of Duty game does more than just throw in some new guns and maps. I can't go into too much detail because I don't play the games, but MW3 has a lot of things that MW2 doesn't like the kits and junk. Someone who is more into that game will have to explain it.

Regardless, there is literally no difference between Mario Kart 6 and 7 other than like 3 powers, a few new maps, and two drivers. Except they removed two drivers to make room for those two new ones, so it ends up being practically the same. Also, they removed the ability to blow up balloons using the mic, among some other things.
lol what. Okay so MW3 adds... kits? Right? Mario Kart 7 adds underwater racing and flying (addressed in the review but still), customization, new tracks and characters, community features, and little polishes and tweaks here and there. I know these are all dismissed in the review but please don't undermine them. They're far bigger than any update CoD has received, which causes me to wonder why CoD got such a high score from Jim. Again, I blame it on his inability to review games.
 

Kopikatsu

New member
May 27, 2010
4,924
0
0
Balobo said:
Kopikatsu said:
How do you know it's a high quality game? It isn't even out yet. Besides, if it's practically the same as it's predecessors, then yeah, it's average.
The predecessors WERE high quality =/ Obviously other reviews are saying that this is a very high quality product. People who managed to get the game are also saying that. It's a high quality product. End of.
If we're going based on numbers here (As you seem to wish to do), then Call of Duty is the best game ever made. Broke every sales record known to man and all that. So to use your own phrase, 'Call of Duty is the best game ever made. End of.'

You should be complaining why Call of Duty only got a 9.5 instead of the full 10.

Balobo said:
lol what. Okay so MW3 adds... kits? Right? Mario Kart 7 adds underwater racing and flying (addressed in the review but still), customization, new tracks and characters, community features, and little polishes and tweaks here and there. I know these are all dismissed in the review but please don't undermine them. They're far bigger than any update CoD has received, which causes me to wonder why CoD got such a high score from Jim. Again, I blame it on his inability to review games.
Like I said, I can't go into all the details. Each Call of Duty sequel adds something that changes the dynamic of the game. If you were to play the first Call of Duty and then play Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, it would be like playing an entirely different game. Same with Dynasty Warriors and Pokemon.

Playing Mario Kart and Mario Kart 7? Graphics would be slightly less blocky. Whoopdie-doo. Customization was in earlier Mario Kart games, characters add nothing to the gameplay (Aside from light/medium/heavy weight classes), underwater racing and flying are (apparently) functionally the same as driving like normal...dynamics didn't change.

That's the difference between formulaic and stagnant.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Balobo said:
If it's all positives then why didn't he give it at least an 8? He gives mediocre scores to high quality games?
All positives except for the issues he had with it, you mean. Slanting things is not really helping your argument any.
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
Balobo said:
Kopikatsu said:
How do you know it's a high quality game? It isn't even out yet. Besides, if it's practically the same as it's predecessors, then yeah, it's average.
The predecessors WERE high quality =/ Obviously other reviews are saying that this is a very high quality product. People who managed to get the game are also saying that. It's a high quality product. End of.

Kopikatsu said:
Not really. Each Call of Duty game does more than just throw in some new guns and maps. I can't go into too much detail because I don't play the games, but MW3 has a lot of things that MW2 doesn't like the kits and junk. Someone who is more into that game will have to explain it.

Regardless, there is literally no difference between Mario Kart 6 and 7 other than like 3 powers, a few new maps, and two drivers. Except they removed two drivers to make room for those two new ones, so it ends up being practically the same. Also, they removed the ability to blow up balloons using the mic, among some other things.
lol what. Okay so MW3 adds... kits? Right? Mario Kart 7 adds underwater racing and flying (addressed in the review but still), customization, new tracks and characters, community features, and little polishes and tweaks here and there. I know these are all dismissed in the review but please don't undermine them. They're far bigger than any update CoD has received, which causes me to wonder why CoD got such a high score from Jim. Again, I blame it on his inability to review games.
CoD Mw3

-16 New maps
-New Spec Ops Missions
-New Single-Player
-New Guns
-New Locals
-New Survival Mode
-New Multiplayer Gameplay Modes
-New Point Streaks.

That DLC would cost about... $60.... Oh wait...
 

Balobo

New member
Nov 30, 2009
476
0
0
Kopikatsu said:
If we're going based on numbers here (As you seem to wish to do), then Call of Duty is the best game ever made. Broke every sales record known to man and all that. So to use your own phrase, 'Call of Duty is the best game ever made. End of.'

You should be complaining why Call of Duty only got a 9.5 instead of the full 10.
Ay, but MW3 has been getting mediocre reception from fellow gamers I know. Whereas, Mario Kart 7 is both getting good reviews critically and from regular users.

Kopikatsu said:
Like I said, I can't go into all the details. Each Call of Duty sequel adds something that changes the dynamic of the game. If you were to play the first Call of Duty and then play Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, it would be like playing an entirely different game. Same with Dynasty Warriors and Pokemon.

Playing Mario Kart and Mario Kart 7? Graphics would be slightly less blocky. Whoopdie-doo. Customization was in earlier Mario Kart games, characters add nothing to the gameplay (Aside from light/medium/heavy weight classes), underwater racing and flying are (apparently) functionally the same as driving like normal...dynamics didn't change.

That's the difference between formulaic and stagnant.
If you went from Super Mario Kart to Mario Kart 7, there would be TONS and TONS of differences. One major one being a jump from a mix of 2D characters and objects and 3D terrain to full 3D. It's not just "dur hur its slitly less bloky". You would also have different modes such as balloon battle and that one shine capture game. You would have a plethora of new tracks, more characters, robust online features, etc. Tracks would have alternate paths and would be generally larger, more items, more challenges, etc. How is it any less of a jump between CoD 1 and CoD MW3?

Also, if you can't explain what's different than MW2 and MW3, stop using it as an argument.
 

Balobo

New member
Nov 30, 2009
476
0
0
Korten12 said:
CoD Mw3

-16 New maps
-New Spec Ops Missions
-New Single-Player
-New Guns
-New Locals
-New Survival Mode
-New Multiplayer Gameplay Modes
-New Point Streaks.

That DLC would cost about... $60.... Oh wait...
So basically the exact same internals (save for a few little changes) stuffed into a new mediocre campaign?
 

Balobo

New member
Nov 30, 2009
476
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Balobo said:
Ay, but MW3 has been getting mediocre reception from fellow gamers I know.
Pretty sure my friends would call Mario Kart ass. What's your point?
I'm talking about people that actually PLAY more than two video games.
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
Balobo said:
Korten12 said:
CoD Mw3

-16 New maps
-New Spec Ops Missions
-New Single-Player
-New Guns
-New Locals
-New Survival Mode
-New Multiplayer Gameplay Modes
-New Point Streaks.

That DLC would cost about... $60.... Oh wait...
So basically the exact same internals (save for a few little changes) stuffed into a new mediocre campaign?
I love how each of your posts acts like it is unobjectively Shit, which is simply not true at all. Whether or not the game is good is based on that person. Stop acting like your opinion is right and everyone elses is wrong.

I loved the MW3 SP, BF3's (just to compare) had a EXTREAMLY mediocre campaign, yet no one complains much... Essentially you paid for BF3's Mediocre SP/Co-op, and then good Multiplayer with like 6 or 7 maps. But, some people I know liked the SP, and thus was worth it for them. I personally think its bad, but that's my Opinion.
 

Balobo

New member
Nov 30, 2009
476
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Balobo said:
I'm talking about people that actually PLAY more than two video games.
As am I. Cute dodge, but again. What's your point?
My point is that Jim Sterling seems to be one of the odd few that are disappointed with this game. Mostly everybody else seems to be loving it up.
 

Kopikatsu

New member
May 27, 2010
4,924
0
0
Balobo said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
Balobo said:
I'm talking about people that actually PLAY more than two video games.
As am I. Cute dodge, but again. What's your point?
My point is that Jim Sterling seems to be one of the odd few that are disappointed with this game. Mostly everybody else seems to be loving it up.
He wasn't disappointed with it in that he didn't like it. He gave it a 5. Average.

He just thought they could have (and perhaps should have) done more with it.

Edit: And again you go to the numbers thing. 'Everyone else likes it, so obviously he must be wrong for not liking it.'

I point you back to Call of Duty breaking every sales record known to man. And it wasn't like the content in CoD:MW3 was a surprise. Everyone who bought it knew what to expect from it.
 

Balobo

New member
Nov 30, 2009
476
0
0
Kopikatsu said:
Balobo said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
Balobo said:
I'm talking about people that actually PLAY more than two video games.
As am I. Cute dodge, but again. What's your point?
My point is that Jim Sterling seems to be one of the odd few that are disappointed with this game. Mostly everybody else seems to be loving it up.
He wasn't disappointed with it in that he didn't like it. He gave it a 5. Average.

He just thought they could have (and perhaps should have) done more with it.
But then why didn't he give MW3 a 5? It had a comparable amount of changes.
 

Balobo

New member
Nov 30, 2009
476
0
0
Korten12 said:
BF3's (just to compare) had a EXTREMELY mediocre campaign, yet no one complains much... Essentially you paid for BF3's Mediocre SP/Co-op, and then good Multiplayer with like 6 or 7 maps.
Korten12 said:
Whether or not the game is good is based on that person. Stop acting like your opinion is right and everyone elses is wrong.
But anyways, yeah my opinion is pretty objective and I shouldn't be using the term "mediocre". Regardless, it doesn't FEEL like a massive jump deserving of a 9.5.