Sometimes, I question the intelligence of...

[quote=mysim20]I believe you shouldn't write a review about something unless you really know what you're talking about. Such as judging graphics even though there is a possiblity of there being budget cuts as well as or it isn't as new.[/quote]

[quote=Canoas]@mysim whether there were budget cuts or the game is old doesn't really matter. I mean, those are just excuses for the graphics to be bad, it doesn't change the fact that the graphics are bad. If you do so then there can be excuses for everything, be it story, music, gameplay or graphics, and you'd have to give every game a 10/10.[/quote]

[quote=Luther3000]Point out where I said graphics didn't matter please. Spoiler: I didn't. Now stop baiting me into replying. >.>[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=Canoas] Why exactly isn't Skyrim good? It was the game of the year for a reason.[/quote] If you can't see how Skyrim failed at many important points then I'm not even gonna bother discussing this.[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=Yukimaru] While i wont say graphics should be completly ignored, i hate it that the game-industry focus on graphics more then gameplay, i mean its a GAME!!! the most important part is Gameplay (and in case of a RPG, Story), besides that the next-gen gamer's are such pussy's cuz most games nowadays are so friggin easy, but luckily we still have Japan who does their shit in games right.[/quote] /agree[/quote]

[quote=Beeswarm17][quote=Canoas] @Beeswarm Well, obviously sites like IGN and gamespot won't review old games, but it's to be expected that people will review them if they're still being sold. If a game is being sold today then you have to rate it according to today's standards, not 20 year old standards. You can't trick the costumer giving it a 10/10 when you know it isn't true. The graphics, sound and mechanisms are outdated, they simply cannot compete with new games. Even games like FF XII and FF X, which to me are the most memorable games I've ever played, would not do well in 2012 and we know this for fact because they're not being bought or sold any more. There's no demand for those games. Is that because the story and gameplay are now considered bad? No, it's because the graphics make a tremendous difference in a game, a difference big enough that no one buys the game any more. [/quote] I don't think people stop buying and/or selling games is based on the graphics. The main issue is that you can sell more new games than old games. I mean, let's face it, most people who want to own FF XII and FF X already do. It won't be cost effective for game companies to make the games again and sell them. It's not like there isn't already enough of them floating around in the used game market as it is, so few new copies would sell. And people do still buy them used. Once I get a PS2 (my money has needed to go to other things, no matter how cheap the console is), I plan on getting both of those games. I think they are both worth purchasing based on what friends have told me about them. Would I buy either if they sold them new? If they were at a reduced price, then yes, I would, but that's because they would have to be roughly comparable, if a little higher priced, to used copies. Would I buy something like ME3 or Skyrim? No because I don't find the games interesting. Graphics have very little to do with my decision, and there are plenty of people like me. People bought plenty of copies of Ocarina of Time 3D, and the graphics weren't much different. I don't think that's because of lowered expectations on the graphics of handhelds, either. It sold based on its quality as well as its reputation. FF XIII sold plenty of copies initially, but quite a few of them landed back on the shelves the following day. Despite the fact that the graphics were better than XII, people stopped buying the game. Games don't sell based solely on their graphics. It's a market just like anything else, but with the deficiency of not being able to sell the same product to the same company multiple times. Once you buy a game, you never have to buy it again, fighting game balancing notwithstanding. As a result, companies need to keep making new games or they will go out of business. However, graphics are certainly an edge in the business. If you have two games side by side with equally good story and gameplay, but you can only purchase one, you'll most likely get the game that has better graphics. Does that mean that one game deserves a higher rating than the other? Probably, since clearly more work went into the game that looks better, if all other things are equal. At the very least, the one with better graphics did a better job. Is that a sizable difference? I don't think so, but it's probably enough to tip the scales. I say this because I don't really want you to think that I completely disagree with you. I think I probably share your opinion more than I thought at first. But I think that there are older games that can compete with newer games because I believe that some older games have better gameplay and storytelling than a lot of newer games in the market right now. As a result, there are plenty of times where I would rather play older games than newer ones. I still buy old games, I still play old games, and I still believe that most of the reviewers of the Mario game that Toshabi linked rated it poorly, not because the graphics were bad, but because they got something different than they expected. And while that's a perfectly justifiable reason to get their money back, it is not a reason for them to give the game a low score. If you think that the game is bad, and if you think that the graphics are terrible, that's fine. I don't mind if you write a review for that reason. But the most of the reviewers did not review for any reason other than they didn't look at the screenshots and judged the game based off of the original 20 year old box art. That's just lazy.[/quote]

[quote=Toshabi]Canoas es best troll. That or he is just mad retarded, but hey, I'll humor you anyways. [quote=Canoas] @Toshabi Are you serious? Really? [quote]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![/quote] 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 retard. I did not miss the point, you're just too stupid to understand that [h1]THIS IS 2012 NOT 1992! [/h1] [/quote] Again, you demonstrate the importance for me to make my blog about "People who give cookie cutter responses to [s]thread topics[/s] posts they don't read/understand". I really want to assume that you're just trolling cause I really enjoy what you do to most threads here on MOBAfail. But yeah, uh, let's go back to the dudes review about this game, and this time (For your viewing pleasure and to help you understand such a complex concept that you can't seem to grasp) I'm going to bold the parts of the guys review that shows contradiction and even colour them red! [quote]This game is in black and white! The icon to advertise it is in color but the game is not. Graphics are poor and [b][color=#ff0000]the game is boring[/color][/b]. It's like worse than the original Atari games. What a waste of money. [b][color=#ff0000]You cant even play it, you just watch Mario jump around.[/color][/b] UGH. I want a refund![/quote] Again, you can think this game is the worst thing to possibly ever exist or go by your rule of "If it's not comparable to my favorite game HALO REACH graphics wise and game mechanics wise then it SUCKS" then I'm okay with that. But to completely grade a game down just because it wasn't in colour is a tad bit retarded. What makes it worse is that the screenshot section just below shows that the game doesn't have colour. I think by far the worst possible thing that can be taken from this persons review is the fact that he admitted to not even playing the game, and yet, he took the time to write a review about the game which he did not play. What they did is seriously comparable to buying a car without test driving it, only to realize that the car didn't even have an engine. They then go back to the person that sold it just for them to point out on the advertisement (In huge letters on the front of the advertisement) that the car needs a new engine to work. There are even pictures of the car with the hood open showing that it doesn't have an engine. That is the point of this topic. If that wasn't clear enough, then here, let me include a little mini summary section at the bottom of this post to help you understand things in simple words your brain can understand, mkay sunshine? Canoas's "easy to understand" summary of big, scary, complicated topic: Research before you buy. Rank games based on gameplay, not on "no colour = no good". Is that easier on your brain sunshine? If not, then I can try my hardest to make it much more simplified for you. I seriously just wanna rub your itty bitty little head like the adorable little angry puppy you are! <3[/quote]

[quote=Canoas]@Toshabi No, it was an hyperbole saying how boring the game was. He basically said it had no playability, all you do is watch mario jump around, which is true. And even if the website shows that the game is in black and white it does not change the fact that it is in black and white. Would you expect a DS game to come out in black and white? No. The fact that the game is old is only an excuse for that, because you have to compare to modern standards. There are much better platform jumping games than mario land 2. You are not rating a game being sold in 1992, you are rating a game being sold in 2012. Those 1/10 reviews are much closer to the real score than the 9/10 and 8/10 reviews, and it is stupid to say otherwise. Take a look at any DS game that came out recently and compare it to mario land 2. Try to guess which game will be better. The reviewers played the game, said it's boring and it's in black and white. What other reason do you need to give it 1/10? It's really idiotic of you to argue otherwise. But please, review the game yourself. Tell us what rating the game deserves taking into account graphics, playability, sound, story and anything else that you think is important in a review (nostalgia isn't). @Luther If you're not saying that then why the hell are you even replying? What exactly are you defending then? Are you defending that playability is important in a game? because if you are then you're retarded. Everyone knows that and I have said it numerous times that gameplay > graphics. But please, tell me what is your point exactly. @Searz So basically you're saying you have no arguments to back up your statement? If you're going to make baseless claims and dismiss any need of proof because others can't see it then don't bother even posting. That's not how arguments work. I've played skyrim for over 250h. It had several bugs, but most don't really affect the game play, some were funny really. I guess the followers were a bit stupid as well, so I wasn't really encouraged to use them but even if they were useful I doubt I would want them following me around. Apart from those two I don't see any problems with the game. But please, enlighten me. @Beeswarm Ocarina of Time 3D is for DS.. The first ocarina of time was for TV. Obviously the graphics won't be that different because the screen size got reduced by 95%. Play ocarina of time on a TV and you'll see the difference. Would you buy FF VII (I assume you meant VII, because XII is rather recent) for 60$ if it came out now? With the lack of voices and blocky graphics? I don't think so. At least I know I wouldn't. Obviously games aren't only based on graphics. I never said they were. I've been saying exactly the opposite. For me playability and story > graphics. However, I still acknowledge that graphics are important for a game and a game that has 20 year old graphics will never sell in today's market. It's not a difference like between MW3 and MW2, it's being able to see every individual pixel on the screen. Whether they looked at the screenshots is irrelevant. That does not change how the game is. They bought a game, tried it and found it boring so they rated it 1/10. They are completely unbiased as they are rating the game as if it had come out now.[/quote]

[quote=Toshabi]I still like you despite you having a really bad moment right now. With that said, continue to eat away at the other poor souls that you have trapped in your jaws.[/quote]

[quote=Canoas]I don't think I had a bad moment. Most people here misunderstood me and think I'm saying that graphics are the only thing that matters or that graphics > gameplay/story, but I don't really care about those. What I don't understand is how you can say someone is unintelligent because they played a game that is boring by today's standards and gave it a rating that reflects it. Even back then I thought pokemon was much better than mario and had a lot more fun playing pokemon. If in 1998 I wouldn't give mario land 2 anything higher than 6/10 I don't see why after 14 years people rate the game 8/10 and 9/10. It makes no sense to me. If anything those were the people you should call idiots. How can mario land 2, a game now for the 3DS, compete with ocarina of time or pushmo? It can't.[/quote]