Super Mario Galaxy 2 - Edge Review

What's wrong with people being able to show off scores for Galaxy 2, regardless of whether or not most people know it'll be good. Everyone does it with games they're excited for. Why not people who are excited for Galaxy? It's not really to prove anything, its just nice to see what reviewers have to say about the title -- what remains consistent across all reviews.Haziqonfire

Sheep have been the biggest opponents of using review scores when comparing game systems.

However, that's not what this thread is doing, so I see no harm in it.

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"]I never trust early reviews.kontejner44

They play the same copy of the game so... as for the time period, I think they recieved the game monday so there was plenty of time to analyze it. At least IGN got it then, not 100% sure though

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"]I never trust early reviews.nintendo-4life

They play the same copy of the game so... as for the time period, I think they recieved the game monday so there was plenty of time to analyze it. At least IGN got it then, not 100% sure though

Early reviews are "inaccurate" when compared to the masses only because there's nothing to compare it with. It's like the first review of SMG is 9/10 (which is the lowest professional review on metacritic), that of course is "inaccurate" when compared to the average.

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"][QUOTE="kontejner44"]

They play the same copy of the game so... as for the time period, I think they recieved the game monday so there was plenty of time to analyze it. At least IGN got it then, not 100% sure though

kontejner44

Early reviews are "inaccurate" when compared to the masses only because there's nothing to compare it with. It's like the first review of SMG is 9/10 (which is the lowest professional review on metacritic), that of course is "inaccurate" when compared to the average.

huh? so you're saying reviewers give games scores based on what other reviewers scored them?

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"]I never trust early reviews.nintendo-4life

They play the same copy of the game so... as for the time period, I think they recieved the game monday so there was plenty of time to analyze it. At least IGN got it then, not 100% sure though

i wouldnt think an early review for a single-player focused game would matter

whether they play it now or 3 weeks from now it will be the same experience.... not sure how they can become 'innaccurate'...

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"][QUOTE="kontejner44"]

They play the same copy of the game so... as for the time period, I think they recieved the game monday so there was plenty of time to analyze it. At least IGN got it then, not 100% sure though

ogvampire

i wouldnt think an early review for a single-player focused game would matter

whether they play it now or 3 weeks from now it will be the same experience.... not sure how they can become 'innaccurate'...

there are people who say that early review are sometimes paid off. I think in that case they could be considered inaccurate.

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"] It's not about the game itself. But early reviews (especially like this one where it's 3 weeks prior to release) always tend to be inaccurate. Of course that's not to say i'm not happy, but i'd rather wait a bit before celebrating.Phaze-Two

Early reviews are "inaccurate" when compared to the masses only because there's nothing to compare it with. It's like the first review of SMG is 9/10 (which is the lowest professional review on metacritic), that of course is "inaccurate" when compared to the average.

huh? so you're saying reviewers give games scores based on what other reviewers scored them?

No, I'm saying that the review is "inaccurate" because there's nothing to compare it with.

In order to see if the review is somewhat credible, it should be close to the average.

Therefore, we can not say if it is accurate or not yet, because we don't know what the average is.

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"][QUOTE="kontejner44"]

They play the same copy of the game so... as for the time period, I think they recieved the game monday so there was plenty of time to analyze it. At least IGN got it then, not 100% sure though

kontejner44

Early reviews are "inaccurate" when compared to the masses only because there's nothing to compare it with. It's like the first review of SMG is 9/10 (which is the lowest professional review on metacritic), that of course is "inaccurate" when compared to the average.

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"] It's not about the game itself. But early reviews (especially like this one where it's 3 weeks prior to release) always tend to be inaccurate. Of course that's not to say i'm not happy, but i'd rather wait a bit before celebrating.nintendo-4life

Early reviews are "inaccurate" when compared to the masses only because there's nothing to compare it with. It's like the first review of SMG is 9/10 (which is the lowest professional review on metacritic), that of course is "inaccurate" when compared to the average.

well yeah that's fine, if you have that experience then I guess so, I don't have any so I can't tell.

You should know based on your playthrough of SMG and from all the coverage of SMG2 if this game will be an AAAA experience for you or not tbh

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"] It's not about the game itself. But early reviews (especially like this one where it's 3 weeks prior to release) always tend to be inaccurate. Of course that's not to say i'm not happy, but i'd rather wait a bit before celebrating.Phaze-Two

i wouldnt think an early review for a single-player focused game would matter

whether they play it now or 3 weeks from now it will be the same experience.... not sure how they can become 'innaccurate'...

there are people who say that early review are sometimes paid off. I think in that case they could be considered inaccurate.

well yeah, in that case, it would be inaccurate AND despicable

[QUOTE="Phaze-Two"]

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

i wouldnt think an early review for a single-player focused game would matter

whether they play it now or 3 weeks from now it will be the same experience.... not sure how they can become 'innaccurate'...

ogvampire

there are people who say that early review are sometimes paid off. I think in that case they could be considered inaccurate.

well yeah, in that case, it would be inaccurate AND despicable

[QUOTE="Phaze-Two"]

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

Early reviews are "inaccurate" when compared to the masses only because there's nothing to compare it with. It's like the first review of SMG is 9/10 (which is the lowest professional review on metacritic), that of course is "inaccurate" when compared to the average.

kontejner44

huh? so you're saying reviewers give games scores based on what other reviewers scored them?

No, I'm saying that the review is "inaccurate" because there's nothing to compare it with.

In order to see if the review is somewhat credible, it should be close to the average.

Therefore, we can not say if it is accurate or not yet, because we don't know what the average is.

It didn't seem to me he said it was definitly inaccurate. he just said based on what he's seen in the past he doesn't trust early reviews because they tend to be inaccurate.

[QUOTE="roxlimn"][QUOTE="JAB991"]"Fake journalists?" 88mphSlayer

real journalists also actually cover things that matter

video gaming doesn't matter

I'm a journalist with a journalism degree.

Video Games certainly DO matter; its a multi-billion dollar industry. However, based on the context of reality and whats truly important -- its utterly insignificant. I pretty much agree with this point of view aside from the fact that video game journalists - by definition - are real journalists. I think the disparity you're looking for here is not "real journalist" versus "fake journalist", but "journalist" versus "good/great journalist". Essentially, Kevin VanOrd versus Mike Wallace.

If you told Mike Wallace he was the "Kevn VanOrd of the evening news", he'd probably be like, "who?". If you told VanOrd he was the Mike Wallace of Video Game journalism he'd probably ask for a raise. This highlights the very top and the bottom of the journalism food-chain in my opinion.

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

[QUOTE="Phaze-Two"]

there are people who say that early review are sometimes paid off. I think in that case they could be considered inaccurate.

KungfuKitten

well yeah, in that case, it would be inaccurate AND despicable

It's not even needed. The score of their games does not dictate if the game will sell or not. I don't think Nintendo cares about reviews.

[QUOTE="ogvampire"]

[QUOTE="Phaze-Two"]

there are people who say that early review are sometimes paid off. I think in that case they could be considered inaccurate.

KungfuKitten

well yeah, in that case, it would be inaccurate AND despicable

i'd hope not. especially not with their classic franchises

[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"][QUOTE="ogvampire"]

well yeah, in that case, it would be inaccurate AND despicable

kontejner44

It's not even needed. The score of their games does not dictate if the game will sell or not. I don't think Nintendo cares about reviews.

i don't think that's true for their classic games. there are educated gamers on wii doon't discount the userbase completely.

[QUOTE="eveileb-ekam"][QUOTE="tomarlyn"]They gave Bayonetta a 10 and Dragon Age a 5 in the same magazinetomarlyn

[QUOTE="tomarlyn"]They gave Bayonetta a 10 and Dragon Age a 5 in the same magazinejg4xchamp

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="tomarlyn"]They gave Bayonetta a 10 and Dragon Age a 5 in the same magazineRichardStallman

Wow I must say that is impressive but since the first one is my favorite game this gen, then SMG2 will be awesome too.

Overall, this year has cactually been a great year to own a Wii and I still need to get MH tri and Fragile Dreams. :)

I want it now.

It's not even needed. The score of their games does not dictate if the game will sell or not. I don't think Nintendo cares about reviews.kontejner44

I'm a journalist with a journalism degree. Video Games certainly DO matter; its a multi-billion dollar industry. However, based on the context of reality and whats truly important -- its utterly insignificant. I pretty much agree with this point of view aside from the fact that video game journalists - by definition - are real journalists. I think the disparity you're looking for here is not "real journalist" versus "fake journalist", but "journalist" versus "good/great journalist". Essentially, Kevin VanOrd versus Mike Wallace.

If you told Mike Wallace he was the "Kevn VanOrd of the evening news", he'd probably be like, "who?". If you told VanOrd he was the Mike Wallace of Video Game journalism he'd probably ask for a raise. This highlights the very top and the bottom of the journalism food-chain in my opinion.Game-fu

It's from Edge people, their numerical score is completly random lol

LOL at haters trying to discredit Edge because SMG2 was given a 10.

"but but teh Edge gave x game teh low score and its not credilble!11!!"

A 10...

This game is going to be awesome.

The more I hear about this game, the more I regret letting my Wii go. Super Mario Galaxy was the definitive experience this generation and '2' is shaping up to recapture that magic and exponentially improve the formula.

8.5 at Gamespot.Nuck81

[QUOTE="Nuck81"]8.5 at Gamespot.Shinobishyguy

]I'll laugh my ass off is GS is the only site to give this game below a 9. Not because of a flop but because it pretty much confirms my suspicions. I'm hoping they'll pull through and finally break that 8.5 cap they've set Shinobishyguy

GameSpot does not hold a vendetta against the Wii. We have already been through this discussion before.

[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"]]I'll laugh my ass off is GS is the only site to give this game below a 9. Not because of a flop but because it pretty much confirms my suspicions. I'm hoping they'll pull through and finally break that 8.5 cap they've set Sky-

GameSpot does not hold a vendetta against the Wii. We have already been through this discussion before.

Great score. Can't wait to get this game in my hands.

[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"]]I'll laugh my ass off is GS is the only site to give this game below a 9. Not because of a flop but because it pretty much confirms my suspicions. I'm hoping they'll pull through and finally break that 8.5 cap they've set Sky-

GameSpot does not hold a vendetta against the Wii. We have already been through this discussion before.

All developers have to do is offer a "subscription fee" *wink wink* to gamespot, and then they'll easily break the 8.5 barrier. It's simple really.

So hyped. SMG2 will be the new GOTF.

also got 97% from ONM uk

[QUOTE="Nuck81"]8.5 at Gamespot.Shinobishyguy

LOL at haters trying to discredit Edge because SMG2 was given a 10.

"but but teh Edge gave x game teh low score and its not credilble!11!!"

magiciandude

Same thing happens with every Edge score. (FFXIII, GOW3, SCC...)

[QUOTE="magiciandude"]

LOL at haters trying to discredit Edge because SMG2 was given a 10.

"but but teh Edge gave x game teh low score and its not credilble!11!!"

SgtKevali

Same thing happens with every Edge score. (FFXIII, GOW3, SCC...)