Gaming New Super Mario Bros. 2 receives 36/40 in Famitsu magazine

[Eerpow]

You know what? I wish more publications were like that.
If they know what their fans are looking for, they know accordingly how to review the product they're looking at.

They give reviews from the fan's perspective and accordingly can give the sort of score a fan would.
If a company suddenly came out with a game that would actually be disdained by the fans, it seems more likely that they wouldn't give it a deserving score in the fans eyes.
It puts them on the same wavelength as the fans, it's a bit more mutual.

So you'd rather be told what you want to hear than what you should hear?

Like I'm sure every Duke Nukem fan wanted to hear that Duke Nukem Forever was gonna be a great game, but reviewers realized it was a shit and couldn't just say what people wanted to hear. I want the people who review games to be acquainted with the series or the genre but I don't want them to be (or act) blindly obsessed with it so even if it is a dog turd they'll throw a high number at it because it hits the right fanboy notes.

That's not how it would work. Or at least it shouldn't be that way.
The reviewer should be a fan, not a blinded fanboy.

I think RupeeClock's point is that the review should be made by a person who has prior knowledge to the either the series or the genre of the game he or she is reviewing, if the famitsu reviewers are fans of Mario games or just platformers in general then it would mean that they're viewing the title from a platformer-fan perspective, giving people who are actually interested a better view on what to expect compared to other platforming titles.
Reviewing as a fan for fans allows the reviewer to go more in depth compared to the common everyday reviewer who just plays a game in a series (maybe for the first time) a few hours only completing the main objective before moving on to the next game.
Games comes in different genres so naturally gamers have different tastes, there is no universal definition of what a gamer likes.

Having reviewers review the type of games they like would most likely lead to higher review scores, yes, however this isn't necessarily a bad thing since you wouldn't be able to compare let's say two games with perfect scores if they aren't in the same genre which IMO is a much more fair way to do it.
For example a platformer with a 10/10 score shouldn't be compared to a sports game with a 10/10 score.

Duke Nukem Forever might be bad as a modern FPS, but was it bad compared to the other games in that series?
That's what a fan who enjoyed the previous games really wants to know.

 

[FireGrey]

Review scores don't matter and that's the case with all sites.
You cant judge how good a game is because reviewers always just take a lucky dip for a 7-8-9-10/10
What makes a review important is it's comments relating to your interests.

 

[RupeeClock]

That's not how it would work. Or at least it shouldn't be that way.
The reviewer should be a fan, not a blinded fanboy.

I think RupeeClock's point is that the review should be made by a person who has prior knowledge to the either the series or the genre of the game he or she is reviewing, if the famitsu reviewers are fans of Mario games or just platformers in general then it would mean that they're viewing the title from a platformer-fan perspective, giving people who are actually interested a better view on what to expect compared to other platforming titles.
Reviewing as a fan for fans allows the reviewer to go more in depth compared to the common everyday reviewer who just plays a game in a series (maybe for the first time) a few hours only completing the main objective before moving on to the next game.

Games comes in different genres so naturally gamers have different tastes, there is no universal definition of what a gamer plays.

Having reviewers review the type of games they like would most likely lead to higher review scores, yes, however this isn't necessarily a bad thing since you wouldn't be able to compare let's say two games with perfect scores if they aren't in the same genre which IMO is a much more fair way to do it.
For example a platformer with a 10/10 score shouldn't be compared to a sports game with a 10/10 score.

Duke Nukem Forever might be bad as a modern FPS, but was it bad compared to the other games in that series?
That's what a fan who enjoyed the previous games really wants to know.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say.

What does the fan of the games want to hear?
Just that it lives up to their expectations of the series.
Maybe the game is really an 7 out of 10 sometimes, but for the fans they might like it much more than people unfamiliar with the series, and give it a 9/10 for somehow satisfying something that really caters to long-time players of that genre or series.

Actually this is kinda why the four reviewer scores of Famitsu are nice, people do have differing opinions, based on the kinds of games they like to play.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

You've misunderstood me completely.
In fact, you've pretty much stated what I meant. Fans of the Duke Nukem series would want to hear that the game would disappoint its fans.

All I'm trying to say is that the reviews should reflect what the actual players of the games would say about it.
Let's say for example, the Megaman Battle Network series.
Fans of the series love the games, let's say 4 is about to come out.
Most reviewers would rate the game poorly because of a mostly unchanging formula. The fans would neglect these reviews because they know what to expect from the games.
But then if a review came out from the fan's perspective, and detailed why this game is bad even in the fan's eyes, how it betrays what made the series a fan favourite?

You see where I'm going with this?

Another example to really hammer it in.
Let's say that Dragon Quest X, all of a sudden, turns out to be real-time combat instead of the turn-based combat that the fans love. The game features less of the recurring elements that the fans love like all the known spells, tiers of weapons and armory, recurring abilities and monsters and so on.
The gaming journalists may review the game favourably, objectively, but the fans may hate it for not really being a Dragon Quest game at all.

There is so much more to a game being good than "Is this game good?" Part of what makes games good is that you can expect things from a defined intellectual property. When the next in an installment doesn't live up to expectations, the fans should know. When it hits the mark and does everything the fans would like, and more, the fans should know!
Battle Network 4 and Duke Nukem Forever are examples of games that would be scored negatively by fans and critics alike.
Battle Network 6 however would get negative critic reviews but actually be praised by the fans by delivering a satisfactory experience.

THAT'S what I'm tyring to say.

I've never played Megaman Battle Network so that series of references kinda flew over my head.

But the general gist of what I'm reading is that reviews should reflect what fans want. The issue is that fans are absolutely retarded.

Fans are what has kept series from evolving. Everyone cries because "CoD is just rehashes!" Wanna know why? Because the fans don't want anything else. They like a "glorified map pack" as people call it. Same deal with Pokemon. All they want is the same gameplay and just reskin it. Again, a glorified map pack.

The thing is that reviewers shouldn't try to be fans. No one wants a circlejerk. I read reviews to be informed. What if I never played Megaman Battle Network and I read a review that was just "10/10 THIS GAME IS SO GOOD". Reviewers aren't here to, as I said, circlejerk over games with their fans. They're to inform people. That means to more than just a fanbase. If I wanted to hear how great a game is to its fans, I'd listen to the fans. If I want an outside opinion to know if the game is actually good or just pandering, I'd listen to a reviewer.

Plenty of fans will buy a game for the name alone and discuss if it's good or bad. If you want the fan opinion, listen to them. If you're not a fan and want to play a game for being a good game, then listen to a reviewer. Reviewers have no place in being misleading simply so fans hear what they want.

tl;dr: Fans are retards and I don't want retards reviewing my games.

 

[FireGrey]

You've misunderstood me completely.
In fact, you've pretty much stated what I meant. Fans of the Duke Nukem series would want to hear that the game would disappoint its fans.

All I'm trying to say is that the reviews should reflect what the actual players of the games would say about it.
Let's say for example, the Megaman Battle Network series.
Fans of the series love the games, let's say 4 is about to come out.
Most reviewers would rate the game poorly because of a mostly unchanging formula. The fans would neglect these reviews because they know what to expect from the games.
But then if a review came out from the fan's perspective, and detailed why this game is bad even in the fan's eyes, how it betrays what made the series a fan favourite?

You see where I'm going with this?

Another example to really hammer it in.
Let's say that Dragon Quest X, all of a sudden, turns out to be real-time combat instead of the turn-based combat that the fans love. The game features less of the recurring elements that the fans love like all the known spells, tiers of weapons and armory, recurring abilities and monsters and so on.
The gaming journalists may review the game favourably, objectively, but the fans may hate it for not really being a Dragon Quest game at all.

There is so much more to a game being good than "Is this game good?" Part of what makes games good is that you can expect things from a defined intellectual property. When the next in an installment doesn't live up to expectations, the fans should know. When it hits the mark and does everything the fans would like, and more, the fans should know!
Battle Network 4 and Duke Nukem Forever are examples of games that would be scored negatively by fans and critics alike.
Battle Network 6 however would get negative critic reviews but actually be praised by the fans by delivering a satisfactory experience.

THAT'S what I'm tyring to say.

I've never played Megaman Battle Network so that series of references kinda flew over my head.

But the general gist of what I'm reading is that reviews should reflect what fans want. The issue is that fans are absolutely retarded.

Fans are what has kept series from evolving. Everyone cries because "CoD is just rehashes!" Wanna know why? Because the fans don't want anything else. They like a "glorified map pack" as people call it. Same deal with Pokemon. All they want is the same gameplay and just reskin it. Again, a glorified map pack.

The thing is that reviewers shouldn't try to be fans. No one wants a circlejerk. I read reviews to be informed. What if I never played Megaman Battle Network and I read a review that was just "10/10 THIS GAME IS SO GOOD". Reviewers aren't here to, as I said, circlejerk over games with their fans. They're to inform people. That means to more than just a fanbase. If I wanted to hear how great a game is to its fans, I'd listen to the fans. If I want an outside opinion to know if the game is actually good or just pandering, I'd listen to a reviewer.

Plenty of fans will buy a game for the name alone and discuss if it's good or bad. If you want the fan opinion, listen to them. If you're not a fan and want to play a game for being a good game, then listen to a reviewer. Reviewers have no place in being misleading simply so fans hear what they want.

tl;dr: Fans are retards and I don't want retards reviewing my games.

Fans aren't really retards.
Sure, fans can get sucked up into anything the game does but that's only because it's something they really like.
When you're a fan of a series the series is a whole lot funner and you don't need to push through as many crap games, because you already have a bunch of series you get heaps of entertainment out of.

 

[RupeeClock]

tl;dr: Fans are retards and I don't want retards reviewing my games.

That's a really ignorant statement.

Think about how much Super Mario Bros has evolved over the years.
The difference between SMB 1 and 3, with 2 being a false installment.
The evolution from SMB3 to Super Mario World, then Yoshi's Island, and to Super Mario 64, to Sunshine, to Galaxy 1 and 2.

The evolution of the series has kept in mind what the fans like, there is a certain comfort zone that allows for innovation and change, but drastic alterations to a core formula (in other words to make a different game) are what the fans would dislike.

Of course it's arguable that New Super Mario Bros DS/Wii/2/Wii U aren't that innovative of titles any more, that Super Mario 3D Land is a bit underwhelming, but fans of the series may still very much enjoy the titles.

Games such as CoD play it safe to an insane degree to the point they practically make no effort to evolve. Games such as the Sonic series may evolve so drastically (such as the unpredictable nature of the 3D titles) that fans grow weary of the next installments, a so-called Sonic cycle, fans wanting something much like their Genesis favourites.
Other games might make a more natural evolution, like the 3D transition for Zelda in Ocarina of Time. Many core elements and aspects of OoT succeeded from Link to the Past and Link's Awakening.

It sounds like all you want are all critics to review things absolutely objectively. Reviews do allow for a little something of individual appeal and opinion outside of objectively critiquing something, and even an understanding of the background of the products.

 

[philip11]

You've misunderstood me completely.
In fact, you've pretty much stated what I meant. Fans of the Duke Nukem series would want to hear that the game would disappoint its fans.

All I'm trying to say is that the reviews should reflect what the actual players of the games would say about it.
Let's say for example, the Megaman Battle Network series.
Fans of the series love the games, let's say 4 is about to come out.
Most reviewers would rate the game poorly because of a mostly unchanging formula. The fans would neglect these reviews because they know what to expect from the games.
But then if a review came out from the fan's perspective, and detailed why this game is bad even in the fan's eyes, how it betrays what made the series a fan favourite?

You see where I'm going with this?

Another example to really hammer it in.
Let's say that Dragon Quest X, all of a sudden, turns out to be real-time combat instead of the turn-based combat that the fans love. The game features less of the recurring elements that the fans love like all the known spells, tiers of weapons and armory, recurring abilities and monsters and so on.
The gaming journalists may review the game favourably, objectively, but the fans may hate it for not really being a Dragon Quest game at all.

There is so much more to a game being good than "Is this game good?" Part of what makes games good is that you can expect things from a defined intellectual property. When the next in an installment doesn't live up to expectations, the fans should know. When it hits the mark and does everything the fans would like, and more, the fans should know!
Battle Network 4 and Duke Nukem Forever are examples of games that would be scored negatively by fans and critics alike.
Battle Network 6 however would get negative critic reviews but actually be praised by the fans by delivering a satisfactory experience.

THAT'S what I'm tyring to say.

I've never played Megaman Battle Network so that series of references kinda flew over my head.

But the general gist of what I'm reading is that reviews should reflect what fans want. The issue is that fans are absolutely retarded.

Fans are what has kept series from evolving. Everyone cries because "CoD is just rehashes!" Wanna know why? Because the fans don't want anything else. They like a "glorified map pack" as people call it. Same deal with Pokemon. All they want is the same gameplay and just reskin it. Again, a glorified map pack.

The thing is that reviewers shouldn't try to be fans. No one wants a circlejerk. I read reviews to be informed. What if I never played Megaman Battle Network and I read a review that was just "10/10 THIS GAME IS SO GOOD". Reviewers aren't here to, as I said, circlejerk over games with their fans. They're to inform people. That means to more than just a fanbase. If I wanted to hear how great a game is to its fans, I'd listen to the fans. If I want an outside opinion to know if the game is actually good or just pandering, I'd listen to a reviewer.

Plenty of fans will buy a game for the name alone and discuss if it's good or bad. If you want the fan opinion, listen to them. If you're not a fan and want to play a game for being a good game, then listen to a reviewer. Reviewers have no place in being misleading simply so fans hear what they want.

tl;dr: Fans are retards and I don't want retards reviewing my games.

and when Jim Sterling reviews this game what will you say?

 

[Pleng]

tl;dr: Fans are retards and I don't want retards reviewing my games.

The worst thing you can read at the beginning of a review is "I'm not a particular fan of [genre] games...", if you are a fan of that particular genre, because the review isn't going to relate to the stuff you like and look for in such a type of game.

The only time when a review like that is useful, is if you are also not a particular fan of said genre, but something in the media has sparked your interest and you want to know more from an 'outsiders' perspective.

Well who would have known it? There's room in this world for both types of review*!


*So long as you understand the context of said review

 

[Eerpow]

tl;dr: Fans are retards and I don't want retards reviewing my games.

Change that to review scores are retarded since people can't stay satisfied with them, get rid of scores, problem solved. Fans can be retarded but reviewers can be even more so if they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. At least I hope you agree that reviewers should at least like the genre of the game they're reviewing.

And I don't know why you think this way but fans want, as RupeeClock expresses it, changes that doesn't make it drastically different from previous games.
A reviewer that's a fan of CoD will go on and tell you why they enjoy the game, you as the reader should be able to tell if it's more of the same or in which area the title innovates.
I've never read a review for a sequel that doesn't mention the differences between the titles in the series. Reviews consist of more than just scores you know.
Besides, I don't think people who doesn't welcome improvements even exist. Pokemon has always made small improvements, which is what has kept me interested, like the battle system or online.
What I don't like is that there's almost 6 main games (counting BW2) with the same premise and I'm sure anyone who likes pokémon agrees that this needs some major changes.

Again like I said Fanboys != Fans. You're thinking worst case scenario where the reviewer is a fanboy of the original and doesn't like changes.​

This wouldn't be the case with a professional reviewer. Any you know what? There should be all kinds of reviewers since there are all kinds of different audiences.​

What if I haven't played a game in the series? Then read another review from someone who was in the same position as you or with the same tastes as you, not a review from a fan who has played the entire series.

 

[Janthran]

Where did people say it was going to be bad?

Not really bad but they said it would be the same as NSMB only with a gold coat of paint.

Hah, because it's all about getting the gold. Clever.

 

[RupeeClock]

tl;dr: Fans are retards and I don't want retards reviewing my games.

The worst thing you can read at the beginning of a review is "I'm not a particular fan of [genre] games...", if you are a fan of that particular genre, because the review isn't going to relate to the stuff you like and look for in such a type of game.

The only time when a review like that is useful, is if you are also not a particular fan of said genre, but something in the media has sparked your interest and you want to know more from an 'outsiders' perspective.

Well who would have known it? There's room in this world for both types of review*!


*So long as you understand the context of said review

That's a completely fair view. It's just that I feel that most reviews out there seem to cater to only one method, ya know?

Actually recently I've been checking out Nintendolife a lot, and their reviews really speak out as sound to me.

 

[Pleng]

tl;dr: Fans are retards and I don't want retards reviewing my games.

The worst thing you can read at the beginning of a review is "I'm not a particular fan of [genre] games...", if you are a fan of that particular genre, because the review isn't going to relate to the stuff you like and look for in such a type of game.

The only time when a review like that is useful, is if you are also not a particular fan of said genre, but something in the media has sparked your interest and you want to know more from an 'outsiders' perspective.

Well who would have known it? There's room in this world for both types of review*!


*So long as you understand the context of said review

That's a completely fair view. It's just that I feel that most reviews out there seem to cater to only one method, ya know?

Well they only can; it's only one person doing the review. That's why you can't rely on just one review. Need to read a few.

 

[DiscostewSM]

tl;dr: Fans are retards and I don't want retards reviewing my games.

Getting rather general, aren't we? If I were to say that I am a fan of the Vita, does that make me a retard, or does that include some sort of exception?

 

[Guild McCommunist]

tl;dr: Fans are retards and I don't want retards reviewing my games.

Getting rather general, aren't we? If I were to say that I am a fan of the Vita, does that make me a retard, or does that include some sort of exception?

I mean fans of specific franchises, not broad fans like those of a console (well, to an extent) or a genre. A fan of FPS games will still find a bad FPS game to be a bad FPS game. A fan of a Vita will still find a bad Vita game to be a bad Vita game. Fans of something like Pokemon will generally gobble what's fed to them, it's just the way it is.

 

[DiscostewSM]

Just like a fan of Nintendo products will find one bad lemon in their collection of devices.

 

[broitsak]

Me want this game!