Toshabi wrote:
True, but it's fun to have something portable to carry around with you.
Got eet on mah phone. U yelleh?
Toshabi wrote:
Can I use your post as an example in my next thread: "People who give cookie cutter responses to thread topics they don't read/understand"?
I'll be eagerly awaiting that thread :)
"We've had a few gloomy years with bad console ports, and what do we get in the light at the end of the console-tunnel? A tablet OS ported to PC." - Atlas Tasume, on Windows 8
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
Toshabi wrote:
http://www.gamestop.com/nintendo-3ds/dlc/super-mario-land-2-6-golden-coins-dlc/99303#productDetails
Check out them reviews. Seriously? Give a great CLASSIC game a 1/10 just because it's in black and white? Do they not realize that this games original release date was 20 years ago and that, I don't know, not all games were released in full HD colour? And of course the advertisement is going to be in colour. In fact, that's the old display title they used 20 years ago to sell the game. Moral of the story: never trust reviews done by customers. Especially self-proclaimed 'old school gamers' and parents. Sheesh, people are fugging stupid.
Oh uh, yeah also, Mario land 2 was a p great classic game for anyone that's old enough to remember what a brick gameboy was. You know, that gameboy with the contrast knob and stuff. Yeah, good times.
That game was the first game I played on my first gameboy and I can tell you that it does deserve a 1/10. You need to be objective when reviewing something. The game is really short and has bad graphics. You cannot take into account the nostalgia factor, you have to review it as if it were launched today. The review is not for those who have already played it and are looking to relive some old memories, it's for those who haven't played it and expect a 2012 game.
The game may be 20 years old, but the review isn't. You cannot use the year it was made as an excuse for a review to be good. The game is not good by any standards. If that game deserves an 8 then what does skyrim deserve? A 200?
Be objective in your reviews. You would never give more than 2/10 if that game came out today. There are bad reviews there, but it's not the reviews that give it 1/10. If a person who never played the game before thinks it sucks in 2012 then it's likely true. Every single person who voted over it is blinded by their nostalgia. In 2012 this game sucks a lot, there are much better games to play.
It takes a really ******ed person to think that a 20 year old mario land 2 can compete with games released on 2012. It cannot, and it's stupid to think otherwise. The games that might be able to compete are those with awesome stories that moved you to tears, not some mindless platform game that can be beaten in 20 minutes. Mario land 2 was fun to play 15 years ago, but now it sucks. I would NEVER pay 4$ for that game now, those who rated 8/10 and 9/10 are borderline ******ed and know absolutely nothing about video games.
Canoas wrote:
That game was the first game I played on my first gameboy and I can tell you that it does deserve a 1/10. You need to be objective when reviewing something. The game is really short and has bad graphics. You cannot take into account the nostalgia factor, you have to review it as if it were launched today. The review is not for those who have already played it and are looking to relive some old memories, it's for those who haven't played it and expect a 2012 game.
The game may be 20 years old, but the review isn't. You cannot use the year it was made as an excuse for a review to be good. The game is not good by any standards. If that game deserves an 8 then what does skyrim deserve? A 200?
Be objective in your reviews. You would never give more than 2/10 if that game came out today. There are bad reviews there, but it's not the reviews that give it 1/10. If a person who never played the game before thinks it sucks in 2012 then it's likely true. Every single person who voted over it is blinded by their nostalgia. In 2012 this game sucks a lot, there are much better games to play.
It takes a really ******ed person to think that a 20 year old mario land 2 can compete with games released on 2012. It cannot, and it's stupid to think otherwise. The games that might be able to compete are those with awesome stories that moved you to tears, not some mindless platform game that can be beaten in 20 minutes. Mario land 2 was fun to play 15 years ago, but now it sucks. I would NEVER pay 4$ for that game now, those who rated 8/10 and 9/10 are borderline ******ed and know absolutely nothing about video games.
You kind of missed the point. This was made about people marking it as a 1/10 based on it being black and white rather then why the gameplay was bad. It's kind of like a teacher grading your essay and giving it a 0/100 because the brand of staples you used weren't her favorite kind, rather then her actually grading your poorly written essay based on its terrible content about how you like to put ribbons on your pubic hair and how that relates to World War I (Spoiler: It doesn't relate to WWI).
Either or, it really looks like you have a bad case of the "**** it, I ain't gonna look at the link and imma assume that OP is *****ing about people downvoting his ****ty game that I don't like". Had you clicked on the link, you would've realized that the game is plagued with reviews such as (my personal favorite)
Quoted:
This game is in black and white! The icon to advertise it is in color but the game is not. Graphics are poor and the game is boring. It's like worse than the original Atari games. What a waste of money. You cant even play it, you just watch Mario jump around. UGH. I want a refund!
If one took the time to actually look at the screen shots (conveniently located right underneath the product description), they would realize that this was a classic title and they would know exactly what they were getting into upon buying this product. This person complains that the game play was poor, yet admits that they never actually even got the game going to begin with. I found this quite humorous and a little depressing at the same time. Quite the manic mix, no?
Anyways Canoas, I'm a little disappointed by your post. Either it was a really poor attempt at troll baiting me or you just went full ****** on a topic you didn't fully understand. I really need to get started on that "People who give cookie cutter responses to thread topics they don't read/understand" thread. Maybe I'll just make it into a blog altogether with some pretty pictures included in it.
tl;dr- People *****ing about buying a product they didn't research before their purchase.
tl;dr 2- People giving cookie cutter responses to thread topics they don't read/understand
Freddy Shopan
<Member>
<Member>
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
@Toshabi
Are you serious? Really?
He says the game is BORING and the graphics are POOR. Is that a lie? NO! The game IS boring and the graphics ARE poor. He has every right to give it a 1/10 score because that's that rating the game deserves. If you think that the game deserves any higher in 2012 then you're nothing but a ******.
I did not miss the point, you're just too stupid to understand thatTHIS IS 2012 NOT 1992!
Would you be happy if I reviewed a computer that was 20 years old and gave it a 10/10? Or a car? Or a plane? or a cellphone as big as your head? NO! It does not matter how good it was 20 years ago, it is not good any more for the same reason that you don't use windows 3.1. Yes, windows 3.1 was the **** back then, but if you're going to say that it's as good as XP or 7 I will gladly punch you in the face. That is completely ******ed.
He has every right to say that the game is boring and has poor graphics because IT IS TRUE. You, on the other hand, DO NOT have the right to say otherwise. By that reasoning you HAVE to give every game 10/10.
"Oh, that game has bad graphics." - reviewer
"The game still deserves a 10/10 because if you researched about it you would know that it has bad graphics" - Toshabi
How the **** does that even make sense? Whether they expected a good game or a bad one doesn't change the fact that the game is ****. Yes, if they knew that the game was **** they wouldn't have bought it, but they did so they reviewed it. The game is bad by 2012 standards. I've played that game several times, and do you know what my rating would be?
Graphics: 1/10
Sound: 2/10
Playability: 2/10
Story: 0/10
Overall: 1/10
And you don't need to be a professional reviewer to rate a game. If you get a game and it's not fun at all then it deserves a 1/10 rating. Be it because of the graphics, the playability or the fact that the game is 20 years old and can't compete with the current market. There are plenty of reasons for that game to be rated so badly, the fact that you're trying to argue against it makes you an idiot.
This is not 1992, it's 2012. Maybe it's time for you to accept the change and stop being stuck in the past.
Are you serious? Really?
Quoted:
This game is in black and white! The icon to advertise it is in color but the game is not. Graphics are poor and the game is boring. It's like worse than the original Atari games. What a waste of money. You cant even play it, you just watch Mario jump around. UGH. I want a refund!
He says the game is BORING and the graphics are POOR. Is that a lie? NO! The game IS boring and the graphics ARE poor. He has every right to give it a 1/10 score because that's that rating the game deserves. If you think that the game deserves any higher in 2012 then you're nothing but a ******.
I did not miss the point, you're just too stupid to understand that
THIS IS 2012 NOT 1992!
Would you be happy if I reviewed a computer that was 20 years old and gave it a 10/10? Or a car? Or a plane? or a cellphone as big as your head? NO! It does not matter how good it was 20 years ago, it is not good any more for the same reason that you don't use windows 3.1. Yes, windows 3.1 was the **** back then, but if you're going to say that it's as good as XP or 7 I will gladly punch you in the face. That is completely ******ed.
He has every right to say that the game is boring and has poor graphics because IT IS TRUE. You, on the other hand, DO NOT have the right to say otherwise. By that reasoning you HAVE to give every game 10/10.
"Oh, that game has bad graphics." - reviewer
"The game still deserves a 10/10 because if you researched about it you would know that it has bad graphics" - Toshabi
How the **** does that even make sense? Whether they expected a good game or a bad one doesn't change the fact that the game is ****. Yes, if they knew that the game was **** they wouldn't have bought it, but they did so they reviewed it. The game is bad by 2012 standards. I've played that game several times, and do you know what my rating would be?
Graphics: 1/10
Sound: 2/10
Playability: 2/10
Story: 0/10
Overall: 1/10
And you don't need to be a professional reviewer to rate a game. If you get a game and it's not fun at all then it deserves a 1/10 rating. Be it because of the graphics, the playability or the fact that the game is 20 years old and can't compete with the current market. There are plenty of reasons for that game to be rated so badly, the fact that you're trying to argue against it makes you an idiot.
This is not 1992, it's 2012. Maybe it's time for you to accept the change and stop being stuck in the past.
I like how people can't argue without being a douche and throw insults everywhere...
In my opinion: The game was made for fans, the fans are totally happy. Fans would give this a higher score.
On the other hand, It's just an old game. It's not a remake, just the game...
Why do you make a review on a 20 years old game anyways? >_>
In my opinion: The game was made for fans, the fans are totally happy. Fans would give this a higher score.
On the other hand, It's just an old game. It's not a remake, just the game...
Why do you make a review on a 20 years old game anyways? >_>
Thanks to jhoijhoi, Brynolf, Jeffy40hands, Samoh, MissMaw, Vavena, Koksei and The-Nameless-Bard for my signs
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
Yougan wrote:
I like how people can't argue without being a douche and throw insults everywhere...
You call it being a douche, I call it being reasonable. It is not an Ad Hominem falacy, where the insult serves as a premise, but a conclusion, where the argument and train of thought proves that they're idiots.
If someone thinks that people are wrong in rating a game 1/10 because they find it boring I will call him an idiot. You can write an extensive review on why it deserves that rating, but the rating is nothing but how fun a game is. A review that says "I find the game boring. 1/10" is as valid as a 3 page review on why the game deserves a 1/10. The fact that the reviewer said only what he finds most displeasing in the game instead of every single thing he doesn't like is not grounds to say he's stupid. If they say "The graphics are really bad. 1/10" it does not mean that they didn't find the game play bad as well, they just thought that the 20 year old graphics were the main reason for the game not to be attractive.
However, the main reason I called toshabi stupid is due to the fact that the person he decided to quote said everything he needed to say. He said that the game had bad graphics and is boring. If he finds that game is boring then he knows enough to rate, because like I said before the rating is how fun a game is. Boring means it's not fun at all. That guy could be wrong if the game became more interesting and fun later on, but it doesn't. It's the same thing over and over again. Whether he played only the first 5 mins or the whole 30 mins the game takes to beat doesn't change anything since it's basically the same experience.
You need to log in before commenting.
<Member>