Worst Gamespot review in History!!!! WarioWare 9.1

  • 60 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Staryoshi87
Staryoshi87

12760

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 0

#51 Staryoshi87
Member since 2003 • 12760 Posts
[QUOTE="Staryoshi87"][QUOTE="aransom"]

[QUOTE="lackey375"]
I own both zelda and warioware, both are fun, but its better to spend 50 bucks on a 50-70 hours game than max 15hours game

aransom

Maybe only 15 hours for you, this game is mostly a multiplayer game, still 15 hours x 4 people = 60 hours.  Two years from now, my copy of Warioware will probably have clocked several times as many hours as my copy of Zelda. 

Game play-time doesn't work like that...Illegal Math!

If you and another guy work together on a project at work and it takes 10 hours, you each get paid for 10 hours, don't you?  What if your boss said that since it was a 10 hour project he only has to pay for 10 hours of work so you and the other guy have to split it?

If you're trying to put a quantatative value on leisure based on how many hours it lasts, you have to include how many hours it lasts per person.  If Zelda had a two player cooperative mode you could say it lasted 100 hours because two people playing for 50 hours is 100 total hours of fun.

We only deal in the fun per person ratio at this establishment. 100 Total Fun Hours / 2 People = 50 Fun Hours / person. Average per person ftw, at least until I can be more than one person at once (multiplicity). Sure it'll get used a bunch, but it's not the right kind of quantitative analysis for me!
Avatar image for aransom
aransom

7408

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#52 aransom
Member since 2002 • 7408 Posts
But couldn't you say that a $50 game that provided 50 hfpp (hours of fun per person) for two people was a better deal than a $50 game that provided 50 hfpp for one person because the people who played the first game got 50 hours of fun for $25 each and the guy who played the second game got 50 hours of fun for $50?  The first two guys pay 50 cents for an hour of fun and the other guy has to pay $1 for an hour of fun.
Avatar image for Staryoshi87
Staryoshi87

12760

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 0

#53 Staryoshi87
Member since 2003 • 12760 Posts
Nah, cause I only care about #1 ;) I don't buy games based on how much my friends will play em, unless it's a multiplayer game. But when warioware is so short...come on now. If they were mini-games it would be better, but microgames don't have much lasting appeal. My friends/me played the crap out of Mario Party, though :) 
Avatar image for pinebark
pinebark

1501

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#54 pinebark
Member since 2003 • 1501 Posts

[QUOTE="codezer0"][QUOTE="jdeurlein"]What bothers me is that they were able to give it a better rating than Zelda. Gamespot's reviews are getting worse as time progresses.SNIPERRIFLE15

Because WarioWare > Zelda.

no way wario is better then zalda u problably say that cause u suck at zelda am i right how many zelda games u beat b4 or played



Uh...huh.

The fact is, the reviewer felt that Wario Ware made excellent use of the remote, is a great party game, has interesting visual forbidden>
Avatar image for codezer0
codezer0

15898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 44

User Lists: 0

#55 codezer0
Member since 2004 • 15898 Posts
no way wario is better then zalda u problably say that cause u suck at zelda am i right how many zelda games u beat b4 or playedSNIPERRIFLE15
And you probably only say WarioWare sucks because you suck at it. ;) :lol: That's one argument that can be taken both ways, buddy. And you have no right to try and tell me that I don't like it only because "I suck at it." I've played just about all the Legend of Zelda games, and I found every single one of them horrible. From the original NES Zelda titles, the one on SNES, Ocarina of Time, I just didn't like any of them. And certainly none of them had any kind of compelling story that would have kept me on it, like Final Fantasy IV, XIII, or Killer7. I don't care for Zelda, and quite frankly, that's perfectly fine with me. I still know I'd be very happy with a Nintendo Wii because there are still more than enough other games that would keep me happy... not least of which, WarioWare. :)
Avatar image for v3n0m111
v3n0m111

546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 0

#56 v3n0m111
Member since 2006 • 546 Posts
I recently purchased a copy of WarioWare for the Wii after seeing that it was GameSpot's top rated Wii game with a score of 9.1.   When I started playing the game I must admit that I was entertained with the mini-games and insane visuals.  However, after a little over 1 hour I had beat the main story mode.  I realize that the game can be replayed but it's just not that exciting when you've already beat 90% of the minigames.  Can anyone explain how a game that can be beat in one hour can receive a score of 9.1 from GameSpot????  Their review is the MOST misleading review I've ever seen and I want to warn everyone here to not believe the hype!  This game is a rental, and a short rental at that.  I just wish I could take the game back and get something actually worth $50!  Shame on you Gamespot, you completely blew this review!cbtrey3


Why would you buy this game just beacause GameSpot liked it?
Avatar image for wizdom
wizdom

10111

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#57 wizdom
Member since 2003 • 10111 Posts
[QUOTE="hazbazz"][QUOTE="jdeurlein"]What bothers me is that they were able to give it a better rating than Zelda. Gamespot's reviews are getting worse as time progresses.jdeurlein
*sigh* As a minigame collection, Warioware is Amazing As a full length adventure, Zelda is only Great You have to compare the differences in the genre before deciding which is a better game

I understand that. But still. Many people don't look at it like that. Many people look at the scores of 8.8 and 9.1 and think, "Well Wario Ware got a 9.1, so it must be better." I happen to be one of those people. When I see a higher score, I see a higher quality game. Therefore, seeing Wario Ware get a higher score basically shows most people that it's the better game. Most people out there would disagree with that.... I know I do.

It doesn't matter really, they are two different games periodly, everytime I visit the board I see a topic of someone crying over the Zelda score which shows me that some of you really need to find something better to do with your time, IMO Wario Ware is the best game for the Wii, just because Jeff gave it a higher score then Zelda doesn't mean its the end of the dam world like someone of you act like, A score of a game shouldn't be lowered to please all of you Zelda fanboys out there, Zelda and Wario Ware are two different games plain and simple, live with it instead of complaining about it over and over again... its getting annoying.
Avatar image for 0N1_L3G3ND
0N1_L3G3ND

1046

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#58 0N1_L3G3ND
Member since 2004 • 1046 Posts
Wow, well I've read the entire thread, and here is my bit.

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"][QUOTE="bobbetybob"]i hate the fact that they give Warioware a 9.1 when it lasts for like 2 hours max yet Zelda (a gripping 40 hours) get's an 8.8 they suck at reviewing....bobbetybob

Like I said, you can finish all of the Mario games in the length of the average commercial break.
They are all bad games too?

yeah lets see you complete WarioWare first time in an ad break....i'm on about the first time you play it...warioware is probably the same length for everyone, it is the least difficult game i've ever played, i've owned all the wariowares i think they are fun but i didn't buy this one because i hate the length for me it wrecks the game, i don't find it a game i want to come back to and keep playing


You definitely never answered his question.  Regardless of your answer, to put it in short, his point is, the length of a game doesn't necessarily take away from it.  All of the Mario games can be beaten in 5 minutes (give or take) and they are hailed as the best games of all time. (depends on who you ask)

[QUOTE="aransom"][QUOTE="Staryoshi87"][QUOTE="aransom"]

[QUOTE="lackey375"]
I own both zelda and warioware, both are fun, but its better to spend 50 bucks on a 50-70 hours game than max 15hours game

Staryoshi87

Maybe only 15 hours for you, this game is mostly a multiplayer game, still 15 hours x 4 people = 60 hours. Two years from now, my copy of Warioware will probably have clocked several times as many hours as my copy of Zelda.

Game play-time doesn't work like that...Illegal Math!

If you and another guy work together on a project at work and it takes 10 hours, you each get paid for 10 hours, don't you? What if your boss said that since it was a 10 hour project he only has to pay for 10 hours of work so you and the other guy have to split it?

If you're trying to put a quantatative value on leisure based on how many hours it lasts, you have to include how many hours it lasts per person. If Zelda had a two player cooperative mode you could say it lasted 100 hours because two people playing for 50 hours is 100 total hours of fun.

We only deal in the fun per person ratio at this establishment. 100 Total Fun Hours / 2 People = 50 Fun Hours / person. Average per person ftw, at least until I can be more than one person at once (multiplicity). Sure it'll get used a bunch, but it's not the right kind of quantitative analysis for me!


:D Funny!

And lastly, I'm sure Gamespot is thrilled they are the sole and most trusted source you use for buying video games.  But as another poster said before, their opinion isn't god, and they don't pretend to make it so.  If your going to invest in a game, do the research and make sure it's worth your money.  Overall, entertaining thread though.
Avatar image for Boomarley
Boomarley

897

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#59 Boomarley
Member since 2006 • 897 Posts

I said this once in another topic, and I'll say it again.

I wonder if Roger Ebert gets this much hate...

Avatar image for Boomarley
Boomarley

897

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#60 Boomarley
Member since 2006 • 897 Posts

To add on my former post:

Just because Gamespot gives scores above or below the norm does not make them a bad site. I love their unorthodoxy because I can use one of their scores to defend a game that I love (Yoshi's Island DS, for example). You can't hate Gamespot for having individuality.