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

[Balobo]

He took off points from Mario Kart for being stagnant, yet praised MW3. It's really not hard to understand, read a few pages back.

I addressed that. It's really not that hard to understand.

Unfortunately, that wasn't what I was talking about, and you should know it. You know, that whole "context" thing.

Oh, right, you're trying to distract from your whole "but my friends liked it!" Comment.

Sorry, I had no idea you were so caught up by that comment. When I say friends, I mean people I know on sites such as NeoGAF, some Steam chatrooms, etc. that are well versed in gaming. Nobody irl. The reception seems to be overwhelmingly positive.

 

[Kopikatsu]

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.

Why is it that, until now, nobody has pointed out that EVERY MARIO KART HAS BEEN ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SYSTEM? How the hell can you release it as a level pack when the original simply doesn't exist for the particular system?

Fair point, but in that case Nintendo is marketing a...what? Ten-ish year old game for full price?

Weaksauce. Average weaksauce.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

Reminds me of what Yahtzee said. If you really like the game, some random guy on the internets opinion shouldn't matter to you, unless deep down you really don't believe in your beloved game as much as you thought you did.

 

[Kuszh]

FUCK

now that I have your attention this is all worthless bullshit. Most of the reviews for mariokart have been very positive 80/100+. Yhat being said whoever buys it buys it, I have always enjoyed mariokart games they're way more fun than forza fucking motor sport no matter how beautiful and drab that game is.

It's just plain fun. I'm sorry. Regardless, this entire argument people are stuck on comparing it to reviews with COD is not worth anyone's time. If the game is fun it'll catch on, I personally believe it will because mariokart games are always fun.

The thing is that people seemed to be inflamed about is that nintendo "rehashes" it's game structures and there's certainly truth to that. But come on, when you're putting it up to a game franchise which has TWO independent studios pumping games out once a year they're not going to be sticking around for long. I'd equate COD as the Twilight for men (as per my observations to how women can like such a shallow and fluffed literature series).

COD is awesome, I mean hell I have fun when I play it, but I'll move on. We're in a consumer society that needs instant gratification, this is the essence of COD, it's fun as fuck to knife people and shoot them and that shit. People were doing that in Halo long before COD became popular (minus the knifing).

Regardless Halo (and mario IMO) has something COD does not have, and that is a memorable story universe. I see some people here defending COD campaigns, and I can see where your coming from, I enjoyed black ops... for like 2 levels. Honestly nobody gives a shit about COD campaigns, based on my observations all of my friends bought it for the multiplayer, and frankly there's going to be another COD coming out a year after the last fucking one came out so people stop paying attention to a COD game within a day and shit all over its existence, leaving no room for nostalgia.

Nintendo games have timeless campaigns, Mariokart 7 is not just in a standalone universe. I don't need a label as a nintendo fanboy honestly you can go fuck yourself with whatever you think, but Mario is an icon consisting of RPGs, baseball games, soccer games (which actually sucked to me, but hell), fucking mario galaxy (that game is fun as hell and beautifully made). And mariokarts have always been fun to me, so I don't see why that would stop. At least they're moving to the 3D realm, because Nintendo has always been an innovator.

The Wii sold incredibly well in spite of being leagues behind in graphics capabilities (I compensate with my PC which is leagues ahead of any console's graphics) and I still own an Xbox and play plenty of games on that. Microsoft and Sony had to catch up with their motion sensor imitators but if you've seen anything about the Wii U yet you can tell Nintendo's moving on.

So fuck destructoid (not my excessively wordy response). People will probably forget about COD in a few years, not because the games suck but because the developers are more concerned with making the game a huge marketing icon as opposed to a well-rounded product, subsequently shitting out a new game every year. It doesn't make COD any less fun though, just some food for thought....

 

[Cowabungaa]

How dare he have an opinion!

And how dare he give a game he enjoyed a better score than one that bored him!

The OP ain't talking about the opinion as such, but about Sterling being hypocritical and inconsistent.

And I guess he's angry about that. Why I don't really know, because why even bother spending mental energy on it, but there you have it.

 

[mjcabooseblu]

Here's the thing, OP. Mario Kart has overstayed its welcome with incredible enthusiasm; the most recent one that was released with any proximity to "good" was Double Dash. Ever since the first Wii title, I've been prefacing all of their names with "Another Fucking." A five out of ten is a generous score for a game that simply isn't fun.

Keep in mind, though, that releasing a game that's a high-res remake (a la Halo: Anniversary) or that has minor tweaks to gameplay (a la L4D2, Black Ops, ODST, etc) isn't an inherently bad thing; it's when you attempt to hit the refresh button on a game series that's been getting quite a few menacing looks from its old pals that reviewers (and players) cry out, "BULL FUCKING SHIT, NINTENDO."

Besides, the other consoles already have a stranglehold on racing games; Another Fucking Mario Kart is never going to hold a candle to titles like Forza 4, or Driver San Francisco. So man up, Nintendo. It's time to take the franchise out to the woods, tearfully bid it farewell, and put six rounds between its eyes.

 

[mjcabooseblu]

Lol, way to quote Yhatzee there, buddy. xDDD

So a fun little mascot-driven competive racer isn't going to hold up to big-b(u)dget racing titles. OK. Who cares?

Also, the 'first' Wii title? There's only one, unless there's another I'm not aware of? Just curious if there's some mystery game I should go play.

As far as I know, Yahtzee never said that. You do know what quote means, right?

Yes, a little mascot-driven racer will not hold up to the big budget titles. I removed "fun" and "competitive" from your term, because it is neither. As for who cares, the answer would be the players. Big-budget is the key here, because those games actually seem like time, effort and money was put into them, rather than feeling like a game design student's senior project.

And yes, it IS the only Wii title. Currently. Do you really think Nintendo will have the common sense not to make more? First seems like an apt term to use in this case.

compares

I actually CAN spot the difference. A difference in hardware, mostly.

Here's the problem I have with the review. It's not objective.

For instance, Gamespot has guidelines that say every game must be judged on its own merits for the console it exists on, and NOT to judge a game as compared to its predecessors or against games on different platforms. A Wii game is judged on its value as a Wii game (so don't dock points for not having HD graphics). An Xbox game is judged as an Xbox game (so no docking points for lack of PSP tie-ins).

Well, on its own merits, I heard Mario Kart 7 is pretty good. On the 3DS, there is nothing remotely like it or even close to its quality or variety on that system.

I'm going to stop you right there. This is exactly the opposite of the mindset that a reviewer should be taking. Judging it on its own merits would imply that it could compete with other titles on other platforms. You're suggesting that we should judge it based on the merits of the platform.

Basically, you're indirectly stating that because the technology is inferior, we should be nicer to the game. To which I reply: "FUCK." Followed by "NO."

If the game was truly good, you wouldn't have to make qualifying statements about what else is available on the platform. At the end of the day, no matter what platform the game is on, it needs to be judged with the standards held to the competing platforms. In other words, a mediocre game should not get a higher score for being on a mediocre platform.

 

[geK0]

The game isn't very fresh, and I wish they changed a bit more; but it's still pretty fun.

 

[itsmeyouidiot]

...Or, you're just far more willing to put up with rehashes than most people.

I get that back in the 1990's the industry wasn't quite as large as it is today, but now we have so much more choice. If I already have a megaman game, and a sequel comes out that has a few minor tweaks and improvements, explain to me why would I pick that over something else, bearing in mind that I, like almost everyone else, don't have infinite money.

Maybe because I already know what I like and don't want to spend money on something I might not even enjoy?