Mario Galaxy 2 Doesn't Win Gamespot's GOTY

Ok,it didn't get the GOTY award.

So what?

It was way too similar to the first one,just better.

SMG 2 isn´t as good as the first one in my opinion, also there were other great games out there

I stopped caring about Gamespot's GOTY when they gave it to GTA3 over Halo, and then Wind Waker over KOTOR. SMG2 is my favorite game of the gen whether it won or not.

Renegade_Fury

As the title says Mario Galaxy 2 didn't make Gamespot's game of the year

I think this is the best indicator that Mario Galaxy 1 was the stronger title

Jaysonguy

SMG2 not winning GOTY equals SMG is OBVIOUSLY the better title? No...

An illogical conclusion if I've ever seen one. Personally, I thought SMG2 was better than the original, my opinion of course.

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

[QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]

Straight from the Gamespot best of 2010 awards:

"Super Mario Galaxy 2 is even more varied, challenging, and fun than its superb predecessor"

I like to think you're just getting a bit slack with your arguments here rather than this just trolling.

fred1712

Oh, so you support my stance then?

See, nowhere there do the words "better" come up

Only when he thinks he can "win". Notice that he didn't come back... SMG2 doesn't need silly awards (read: opinions) to be remembered as one of the greats.

[QUOTE="fred1712"][QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

Oh, so you support my stance then?

See, nowhere there do the words "better" come up

-John_Connor-

Only when he thinks he can "win". Notice that he didn't come back... SMG2 doesn't need silly awards (read: opinions) to be remembered as one of the greats.

Considering I don't "lose" yeah I guess, also I don't babysit threads but you're following me that closely makes you doing the work for both of us so I'm good with that

The first Mario Galaxy won GOTY the second did not

To put it another way the first Galaxy game won the Superbowl, the second one didn't even make the conference championship game

[QUOTE="-John_Connor-"]

[QUOTE="fred1712"] You always need the last word, don't you? Jaysonguy

Only when he thinks he can "win". Notice that he didn't come back... SMG2 doesn't need silly awards (read: opinions) to be remembered as one of the greats.

Considering I don't "lose" yeah I guess, also I don't babysit threads but you're following me that closely makes you doing the work for both of us so I'm good with that

The first Mario Galaxy won GOTY the second did not

To put it another way the first Galaxy game won the Superbowl, the second one didn't even make the conference championship game

and what if gamespot considers red dead redemption to be better than both galaxy games? RDR wasn't there in 2007 to take the title away from the original mario galaxy. but i guess you're right as always and common sense, together with everyone else, is wrong.

[QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]

Straight from the Gamespot best of 2010 awards:

"Super Mario Galaxy 2 is even more varied, challenging, and fun than its superb predecessor"

I like to think you're just getting a bit slack with your arguments here rather than this just trolling.

Jaysonguy

Oh, so you support my stance then?

See, nowhere there do the words "better" come up

"More fun" is equivalent to "better", unless you aren't a gamer.

The first Mario Galaxy won GOTY the second did not

To put it another way the first Galaxy game won the Superbowl, the second one didn't even make the conference championship game

Jaysonguy

SMG1 got a 9.5 while SMG2 got a 10.0, so, um, yeah. I'm pretty sure that 10 is a larger number than 9.5.

"More fun" is equivalent to "better", unless you aren't a gamer.

GabuEx

uhm... no?

I had more fun playing Dynasty Warriors 6 than I did with RDR but the former is nowhere near the level of quality found in RDR.

Since we are on Gamespot, Kevin Van Ord himself wrote a post in SW some time ago stating that he had more fun playing "x" game but he scored "y" higher.

Galaxy 2 only scored 90-100% scores if you look at metacritic which makes it 80 something to 0 ratio. If you look at user reviews I bet you can find plenty of 8.5's and even the unthinkable -- below.

This is not a coincidence simply because scores are highly predictable, never entered a hype thread on SW before? They are correct way more often than wrong. It's easy to tell in which range of score a given game will get based on footage and maybe half an hour of gameplay.

Polls on System Wars about this matter always bounce around the 50/50 mark, only 1 out of 2 agrees with you.

If you think that half of the GS community is deluded then fine, but trust me there is something to what I'm saying. No game is universal fun, but a game can be recognized as of high quality by many, simply meaning that it's the best at what it does in the case of SMG/2 i.e. if you are into 3D platforming you will most likely enjoy SMG and 2 alot. That's all quality means. For example RDR is nothing for me but for my PS3 fanboy GTA loving friend it's an incredible experience which I agree it is, it's just not for me.

I can point out a well made cake from looking at it and grabbing a bite, even if I dislike that particular cake I can still state that it was well made. Cook critics do that all the time. "I would have loved it to be more of x and y, but I know many people enjoy this kind so I'm not gonna give you a penalty for it"

Movie critics do the same thing. What else do you want? I haven't proved anything here, but this method is way better in predicting and giving gaming advice to people than simply stating quality is subjective, which takes us nowhere. It's not about being right or wrong, logically you are right but it's not helping me achieve my goal. Common sense and intuition is way more helpful than logic in some cases, I hate logic whores!

I'm sure you wheren't surprised by the 10 score of SMG2 either and there is no chance that you even considered this game getting a 5, who are you trying to fool really?

lol no it just means that SMG was the best game in the year it was released where as SMG2 wasn't.

that coming from a dude who gave Transformers War for Cybertron a 10

You could argue that Mario Galaxy 2 had stronger competition this year than the original Mario Galaxy game had when it won GOTY. You could also argue that the concept isn't as original second time around so reviewers aren't as excited, even though they'll say they enjoy it more than the original. Going back to that GameSpot quote from earlier... "Super Mario Galaxy 2 is even more varied, challenging, and fun than its superb predecessor". How does that not suggest that they belivive Mario Galaxy 2 is better than the original?

If you ignore the average scores and Game of the Year awards on the many gaming sites and magazines and read the reviews, the uniform opinion is that Super Mario Galaxy 2 is, at the very least, an improvement on the original. I don't see where there is any room for an arguement here, unless people are arguing their own opinons, which... Well i'm probably visiting the wrong kinds of gaming forum.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

"More fun" is equivalent to "better", unless you aren't a gamer.

TheKI04

uhm... no?

I had more fun playing Dynasty Warriors 6 than I did with RDR but the former is nowhere near the level of quality found in RDR.

Since we are on Gamespot, Kevin Van Ord himself wrote a post in SW some time ago stating that he had more fun playing "x" game but he scored "y" higher.

Galaxy 2 only scored 90-100% scores if you look at metacritic which makes it 80 something to 0 ratio. If you look at user reviews I bet you can find plenty of 8.5's and even the unthinkable -- below.

This is not a coincidence simply because scores are highly predictable, never entered a hype thread on SW before? They are correct way more often than wrong. It's easy to tell in which range of score a given game will get based on footage and maybe half an hour of gameplay.

Polls on System Wars about this matter always bounce around the 50/50 mark, only 1 out of 2 agrees with you.

If you think that half of the GS community is deluded then fine, but trust me there is something to what I'm saying. No game is universal fun, but a game can be recognized as of high quality by many, simply meaning that it's the best at what it does in the case of SMG/2 i.e. if you are into 3D platforming you will most likely enjoy SMG and 2 alot. That's all quality means. For example RDR is nothing for me but for my PS3 fanboy GTA loving friend it's an incredible experience which I agree it is, it's just not for me.

I can point out a well made cake from looking at it and grabbing a bite, even if I dislike that particular cake I can still state that it was well made. Cook critics do that all the time. "I would have loved it to be more of x and y, but I know many people enjoy this kind so I'm not gonna give you a penalty for it"

Movie critics do the same thing. What else do you want? I haven't proved anything here, but this method is way better in predicting and giving gaming advice to people than simply stating quality is subjective, which takes us nowhere. It's not about being right or wrong, logically you are right but it's not helping me achieve my goal. Common sense and intuition is way more helpful than logic in some cases, I hate logic whores!

I'm sure you wheren't surprised by the 10 score of SMG2 either and there is no chance that you even considered this game getting a 5, who are you trying to fool really?

You are attempting to find an objective form of measurement of the value of a game where no such form exists. The entire purpose of a video game is to entertain. Any evaluation of a game that is not centered around this fundamental fact is worthless and utterly misses the point of video gaming itself. A game's "quality" matters and exists only insofar as the degree that it increases the enjoyment players derive from it.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

"More fun" is equivalent to "better", unless you aren't a gamer.

TheKI04

uhm... no?

I had more fun playing Dynasty Warriors 6 than I did with RDR but the former is nowhere near the level of quality found in RDR.

Since we are on Gamespot, Kevin Van Ord himself wrote a post in SW some time ago stating that he had more fun playing "x" game but he scored "y" higher.

Galaxy 2 only scored 90-100% scores if you look at metacritic which makes it 80 something to 0 ratio. If you look at user reviews I bet you can find plenty of 8.5's and even the unthinkable -- below.

This is not a coincidence simply because scores are highly predictable, never entered a hype thread on SW before? They are correct way more often than wrong. It's easy to tell in which range of score a given game will get based on footage and maybe half an hour of gameplay.

Polls on System Wars about this matter always bounce around the 50/50 mark, only 1 out of 2 agrees with you.

If you think that half of the GS community is deluded then fine, but trust me there is something to what I'm saying. No game is universal fun, but a game can be recognized as of high quality by many, simply meaning that it's the best at what it does in the case of SMG/2 i.e. if you are into 3D platforming you will most likely enjoy SMG and 2 alot. That's all quality means. For example RDR is nothing for me but for my PS3 fanboy GTA loving friend it's an incredible experience which I agree it is, it's just not for me.

I can point out a well made cake from looking at it and grabbing a bite, even if I dislike that particular cake I can still state that it was well made. Cook critics do that all the time. "I would have loved it to be more of x and y, but I know many people enjoy this kind so I'm not gonna give you a penalty for it"

Movie critics do the same thing. What else do you want? I haven't proved anything here, but this method is way better in predicting and giving gaming advice to people than simply stating quality is subjective, which takes us nowhere. It's not about being right or wrong, logically you are right but it's not helping me achieve my goal. Common sense and intuition is way more helpful than logic in some cases, I hate logic whores!

I'm sure you wheren't surprised by the 10 score of SMG2 either and there is no chance that you even considered this game getting a 5, who are you trying to fool really?

You can appreciate the quality of a game, sure. But to say it's a better game even if you hated it is really throwing your opinion out the window, and isn't it the opinion that matters?

[QUOTE="TheKI04"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

"More fun" is equivalent to "better", unless you aren't a gamer.

GabuEx

uhm... no?

I had more fun playing Dynasty Warriors 6 than I did with RDR but the former is nowhere near the level of quality found in RDR.

Since we are on Gamespot, Kevin Van Ord himself wrote a post in SW some time ago stating that he had more fun playing "x" game but he scored "y" higher.

Galaxy 2 only scored 90-100% scores if you look at metacritic which makes it 80 something to 0 ratio. If you look at user reviews I bet you can find plenty of 8.5's and even the unthinkable -- below.

This is not a coincidence simply because scores are highly predictable, never entered a hype thread on SW before? They are correct way more often than wrong. It's easy to tell in which range of score a given game will get based on footage and maybe half an hour of gameplay.

Polls on System Wars about this matter always bounce around the 50/50 mark, only 1 out of 2 agrees with you.

If you think that half of the GS community is deluded then fine, but trust me there is something to what I'm saying. No game is universal fun, but a game can be recognized as of high quality by many, simply meaning that it's the best at what it does in the case of SMG/2 i.e. if you are into 3D platforming you will most likely enjoy SMG and 2 alot. That's all quality means. For example RDR is nothing for me but for my PS3 fanboy GTA loving friend it's an incredible experience which I agree it is, it's just not for me.

I can point out a well made cake from looking at it and grabbing a bite, even if I dislike that particular cake I can still state that it was well made. Cook critics do that all the time. "I would have loved it to be more of x and y, but I know many people enjoy this kind so I'm not gonna give you a penalty for it"

Movie critics do the same thing. What else do you want? I haven't proved anything here, but this method is way better in predicting and giving gaming advice to people than simply stating quality is subjective, which takes us nowhere. It's not about being right or wrong, logically you are right but it's not helping me achieve my goal. Common sense and intuition is way more helpful than logic in some cases, I hate logic whores!

I'm sure you wheren't surprised by the 10 score of SMG2 either and there is no chance that you even considered this game getting a 5, who are you trying to fool really?

You are attempting to find an objective form of measurement of the value of a game where no such form exists. The entire purpose of a video game is to entertain. Any evaluation of a game that is not centered around this fundamental fact is worthless and utterly misses the point of video gaming itself. A game's "quality" matters and exists only insofar as the degree that it increases the enjoyment players derive from it.