You pretty much just described DLC...why would i fork out another $60 for some new characters/levels...as for graphics update, mario Kart looked fine on the Nintendo 64, anything more is frivolous.itsmeyouidiot said:
Why Jim Sterling's Mario Kart 7 review is bullshit.
- Thread starter itsmeyouidiot
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It will be $10 in a bargain bin in a week, you are greatly exaggerating with $60.gyroscopeboy said:
I'm behind Jim on this one. He's a smart guy, and his opinions seem QUITE valid to me. He often takes them overboard and makes things seem worse than they are, but that's Jim for you.
But giving MW3 a 9.5 out of 10? Is that really the same Jim? "The game is slow" is apparently his only other reason for the 5/10, sooo what, did he cut 0.5 for the sameness and 4.5 because the karts were moving too slow for his tastes?
I don't think CoD is terrible (definitely not my kind of game, though. UGH.) and Mario Kart is a bit overrated, but both can be fun. I don't doubt that Jim may be completely fine with stagnation in a game he already enjoys and hate it in one he already detests, but his review scores there seem very hypocritical. He himself said that Dynasty Warriors is the Citizen Kane of gaming, and yet gave the latest game a 6/10 all the same. He loves Dynasty Warriors, but it doesn't change much. Just like MW3?
But giving MW3 a 9.5 out of 10? Is that really the same Jim? "The game is slow" is apparently his only other reason for the 5/10, sooo what, did he cut 0.5 for the sameness and 4.5 because the karts were moving too slow for his tastes?
I don't think CoD is terrible (definitely not my kind of game, though. UGH.) and Mario Kart is a bit overrated, but both can be fun. I don't doubt that Jim may be completely fine with stagnation in a game he already enjoys and hate it in one he already detests, but his review scores there seem very hypocritical. He himself said that Dynasty Warriors is the Citizen Kane of gaming, and yet gave the latest game a 6/10 all the same. He loves Dynasty Warriors, but it doesn't change much. Just like MW3?
Nah, it's more that if the game is just the same thing we played 15 years ago, following the fact that a new iteration of this game has been released every 2-3 years, then I don't see why I shouldn't just save the money and boot up the 15 year old game instead.itsmeyouidiot said:
i dunno about everyone else, but i am not "crying". im simply pointing out a massive inconsistency in his review style. According to Jim, (coincidental reference) it is okay for Infinity Ward to change nothing in their sequels, but it is not okay for Nintendo to do it.One Hit Noob said:
I dont get this arguement. He said he didn't have fun with the game so he gave it a low score. Aside from the lack of innovation he claimed, he also criticized how some roster characters were stripped for uninteresting people from Galaxy as well as the actual racing being a bit slower paced then the other games.
He didn't have fun with the game so he gave it a low score. If you had fun with the game, you can give it your own personal score. There! I just solved your problem with Jim Sterling's review! /thread!
He didn't have fun with the game so he gave it a low score. If you had fun with the game, you can give it your own personal score. There! I just solved your problem with Jim Sterling's review! /thread!
Eh, all I hear is moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan Jim Sterling's fat and stupid moan moan moan...itsmeyouidiot said:
He's a reviewer who made some points you disagreed with. Whoopde-fucking-do. He didn't enjoy the rather limited changes to a long-going series which has always in some way tried to innovate. The jump to 3D from Super Mario Kart to 64, the introduction of two drivers in Double Dash, the absolutely brilliant mini-map in Mario Kart DS (Along with there finally being a portable version)... If this game hasn't introduced anything new aside from maps, karts and items (Which all the games have done so far anyway), it's introducing less than it originally used to. Paying the same price for a sequel to a game I bought back in '05/'06 that doesn't well enough exceed the jump between the game before that one (I think Double Dash) means I'm going to feel a little cheated on my purchase.
As many already said the only problem I have is the 9.5 for MW 3 and also having a 5 for Mario Cart where they are both suffer for similar flaws. Also I would hardly call CoD genre defining at this point as it has not defined anything new since CoD 4. Although at least he is giving it a 5 if it deserves a 5 in his eyes none of this 7 average bullshit.
Edit: I would just like to say while I acknowledge that stuff like Mario games have been around for longer the general decrease in innovation and change has been greater in CoD than Mario.
Edit: I would just like to say while I acknowledge that stuff like Mario games have been around for longer the general decrease in innovation and change has been greater in CoD than Mario.
It's just his opinion about the game, get over it. Also, I don't think it's hypocritical at all, considering "stagnation" is in this case a completely relative term.
The thing is, Modern Warfare haven't been going for as long as Mario Kart. Mario kart has been around since the SNES, and it's still by adn large EXACTLY THE SAME GAME. The underwater bits are just like the on-land bits, just slower and the gliding is exactly like the on-ground bits, just floatier. The core gameplay of Mario Kart is simply outdated. Modern Warfare isn't, in my honest opinion.
This is only based on what I've seen, since I haven't played it yet, AND NEITHER HAVE ANYONE ELSE!
This is only based on what I've seen, since I haven't played it yet, AND NEITHER HAVE ANYONE ELSE!
Mario Kart 7 for DS is currently $68 on www.ebgames.com.au so no, not exaggerating at all.DrederickTatum said:
The fact is, EVERYTHING about this thread is subjective, from the OP and his defenders to the guys telling him to just ignore it. If someone had given the so-called-God's-gift-to-*excuse me* SKYRIM!!!1!one a low score, the tables would probably be turned and 75% of the people in the thread would be bitching about a payoff from a rival company (maybe even Nintendo) or reviewer bias or the state of the industry or something like that, no matter how valid the claims may be in the review itself. Personally, I will probably buy Mario Kart 7, and I will enjoy it, and screw anyone who tries to tell me I shouldn't because "WAH it's just the same as all the other ones, Yahtzee says we should all hate Nintendo for making the same 10+ SERIES over and over". But they can have their opinion and respond to me just as I can do the same, and we can disagree and make jokes about it, have a little laugh, and then move on because it's really not that important. I suggest that everyone here does the same.
No, new maps characters and maybe one new feature is not a new game. It is an expansion pack or DLC. A new game involves expanded and changed gameplay.
Sometimes, it goes too far in the change (DA:2). Some times, the change is not enough (Case in point). In all honesty, if it were a PC title and this was released with the exact same engine and graphics, and only some new levels and characters, I'd contact a couple of Modders and get them to make a mod for the game with that stuff, as its the exact same game. Hell, I'd probably have gotten more content already from the modders than from the 'new' game. It does happen. Hell, look at SC2. Its expansion's units are already being recreated for the current engine. Why some dedicated modders couldn't do the same for MK7 if it were on the PC is beyond me.
Look back a few years. The days of Rise of Nations and Empire Earth as a couple of examples. Rise of Nations had Thrones and Patriots as an expansion. What did it do? It added new races, units, a new system to the game, and various other small changes. It never got a sequel that I know of. Empire Earth got a sequel, and it changed the gameplay up. Whilst it was becoming more generic, it still had that Empire Earth feel to it.
This is how sequels should be done. New gameplay, new content, new pretty much everything. Only some new content is DLC or an expansion, not a new game.
Of course, we have not played it so we do not know how much it has changed, but if the OPs statements are all that has changed, then it is not worth $60-$70 as a new game.
Sometimes, it goes too far in the change (DA:2). Some times, the change is not enough (Case in point). In all honesty, if it were a PC title and this was released with the exact same engine and graphics, and only some new levels and characters, I'd contact a couple of Modders and get them to make a mod for the game with that stuff, as its the exact same game. Hell, I'd probably have gotten more content already from the modders than from the 'new' game. It does happen. Hell, look at SC2. Its expansion's units are already being recreated for the current engine. Why some dedicated modders couldn't do the same for MK7 if it were on the PC is beyond me.
Look back a few years. The days of Rise of Nations and Empire Earth as a couple of examples. Rise of Nations had Thrones and Patriots as an expansion. What did it do? It added new races, units, a new system to the game, and various other small changes. It never got a sequel that I know of. Empire Earth got a sequel, and it changed the gameplay up. Whilst it was becoming more generic, it still had that Empire Earth feel to it.
This is how sequels should be done. New gameplay, new content, new pretty much everything. Only some new content is DLC or an expansion, not a new game.
If it were Skyrim, there would be more to justify it being a new game based off the OPs arguments. It has more than a couple of new characters, a new map, and one new system (Say, the Dragons). Much of the game has been reworked from Oblivion, but it still retains its Elder Scrolls feel. I can guarantee Oblivion and Skyrim won't play the same. There will be things you do in Oblivion that you don't do in Skyrim, and there will be things you do in Skyrim that you won't do in Oblivion. Skyrim is considered by many as a streamlined version of Oblivion, as many of the things that required an investment of your time to manage from Oblivion are replaced by simpler systems. This, combined with the massive facelift and massive amount of content, justify a new game. MK7, going by the OPs 'New maps, New characters and minor tweaks such as underwater racing, gliding and cart customisation', MK7 would be more suited as DLC for previous titles.Toriver said:
Of course, we have not played it so we do not know how much it has changed, but if the OPs statements are all that has changed, then it is not worth $60-$70 as a new game.
