Worst Wii Game Review

Ive heard a lot of people complain about things said in reviews for wii games and i was just reading a GS review of a game and was pretty annoyed by the things that was said about it. So what are some of the things reviews have said that just got your blood boilingWorst Wii Game Review
The MP3, Lost Winds, and Boom Blox Reviews come to mind.Worst Wii Game Review
Mario and Sonic at the Olympics, he could nto have played the game for more than an hour (also he wanted to hate the game).
Chicken Shoot.
The FE: Radiant Dawn and ToS2: Dawn of the New World reviews spring to mind.
[QUOTE=''Bigboi500'']The FE: Radiant Dawn and ToS2: Dawn of the New World reviews spring to mind.[/QUOTE]same here.
Do you just don't agree with the score or the actual review? (Open question to anyone.)Like if you have a worst Wii game review, based on the review itself structurally, then you should actually critique it to prove your pont.
i think the twilight princess score was low. i would give it a 9.0 atleast!! i know twilight princess wasnt revolutionary, but it was such a hgh quality game!
Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World and Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn
I thought TP score was a bit low.
[QUOTE=''insanejedi'']Do you just don't agree with the score or the actual review? (Open question to anyone.)Like if you have a worst Wii game review, based on the review itself structurally, then you should actually critique it to prove your pont. [/QUOTE]



Fair enough.



[URL=http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/lostwinds/review.html]GS's LostWinds review[/URL]: Rated as if it's a full-price game, when it is only $10 and has limited space (i.e. it couldn't be bigger than it was.) Players spent between 3 and 4 hours on this game (based on game stats) - let's say 3.5 hours. Aren't $50 Wii games about 18 hours? Aren't many even less? (And aren't many $60-$70 PS3/360 games less than 10 hours?) So let's see some consistency in rating; sure, the game is short, but you're not paying for a full-length game. It's a downloadable game, and the score should reflect that reality. I'd also like to see some consistency in taking marks off for spending some time surrounded by ''dreary blue rock'' in the ''murky depths'' of mines - do they take marks off for spending an entire game in drab, murky browns?



There is also inconsistency within the review itself. It says that ''the gameplay mechanics at first seem like they are going to push the genre forward, but they fall short before any progress is made,'' but later calls it ''innovative gameplay mechanics''. If it falls short, it doesn't innovate: no introduction of a new idea that changes the established way of doing things.



Also, taking points off for being ''sleepy'' and having a ''lack of energy'' and a ''dreamy woodwind soundtrack'' is not legitimate. Certainly, the calm, relaxing atmosphere is not everyone's cup o' tea, but neither is action-packed, heart-pounding action. It's a stylistic choice, neither good nor bad. A game ought to be evaluated on the basis of how well it achieves that atmosphere it attempts to evoke. Does the game give you a sense of idyllic, sleepy little Tibetan-like mountain village? Does it still impart a sense of adventure and drive to complete the game to the player? I'd wager there are very few people who downloaded but did not finish the game.



I understand that not everyone will love this game, but I think that even the people that did not enjoy it could agree that this game should get no less than a 7.0 because it is one of the best WiiWare games, then and still now.



[URL=http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117934519.html?categoryid=1023%26cs=1]Variety's Metroid Prime 3 review[/URL]: What is there to say? They succeed in proving that Metroid Prime is not Halo. Smashing good work. Any review that uses Halo as the measuring stick for all other games with a first-person view automatically forfeits any legitimacy it might have had. They also don't seem to comprehend the fact that there are ''hardcore'' gamers that already have Wiis.
[QUOTE=''clicketyclick''][QUOTE=''insanejedi'']Do you just don't agree with the score or the actual review? (Open question to anyone.)Like if you have a worst Wii game review, based on the review itself structurally, then you should actually critique it to prove your pont. [/QUOTE]



Fair enough.



[URL=http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/lostwinds/review.html]GS's LostWinds review[/URL]: Rated as if it's a full-price game, when it is only $10 and has limited space (i.e. it couldn't be bigger than it was.) Players spent between 3 and 4 hours on this game (based on game stats) - let's say 3.5 hours. Aren't $50 Wii games about 18 hours? Aren't many even less? (And aren't many $60-$70 PS3/360 games less than 10 hours?) So let's see some consistency in rating; sure, the game is short, but you're not paying for a full-length game. It's a downloadable game, and the score should reflect that reality. I'd also like to see some consistency in taking marks off for spending some time surrounded by ''dreary blue rock'' in the ''murky depths'' of mines - do they take marks off for spending an entire game in drab, murky browns?



There is also inconsistency within the review itself. It says that ''the gameplay mechanics at first seem like they are going to push the genre forward, but they fall short before any progress is made,'' but later calls it ''innovative gameplay mechanics''. If it falls short, it doesn't innovate: no introduction of a new idea that changes the established way of doing things.



Also, taking points off for being ''sleepy'' and having a ''lack of energy'' and a ''dreamy woodwind soundtrack'' is not legitimate. Certainly, the calm, relaxing atmosphere is not everyone's cup o' tea, but neither is action-packed, heart-pounding action. It's a stylistic choice, neither good nor bad. A game ought to be evaluated on the basis of how well it achieves that atmosphere it attempts to evoke. Does the game give you a sense of idyllic, sleepy little Tibetan-like mountain village? Does it still impart a sense of adventure and drive to complete the game to the player? I'd wager there are very few people who downloaded but did not finish the game.



I understand that not everyone will love this game, but I think that even the people that did not enjoy it could agree that this game should get no less than a 7.0 because it is one of the best WiiWare games, then and still now.



[URL=http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117934519.html?categoryid=1023%26cs=1]Variety's Metroid Prime 3 review[/URL]: What is there to say? They succeed in proving that Metroid Prime is not Halo. Smashing good work. Any review that uses Halo as the measuring stick for all other games with a first-person view automatically forfeits any legitimacy it might have had. They also don't seem to comprehend the fact that there are ''hardcore'' gamers that already have Wiis.[/QUOTE]

Well you have to look at the bench mark for what exactly 10$ can get you elseware. Frankly I never agree with the ''it's only 5 hours'' sorta mark, but 10$ can also get you something like Bionic Commando which easily has more than 5 hours of content bosted with other stuff in it. If a game is only 3 hours long, and if you go through it once and that's all you see, and it wasn't particularly the best 3 hours you ever spent in a game, then it's not really a good value. And with the points of it being ''sleepy'' or ''lack of energy'' I think you have to remember that reviews are subjective to a point. Stylistic and artistic choices can only be quantified by the reviewer.



The only thing you have proven in this is, is instead of reading the score, you just read the good and the bad without actually judging the text. Well you gotta start somewhere...



The most important thing when you judge something subjectively is you prove why that is. There is a difference from reading the ''lack of energy'' bullet point and the actual text which says...



''This is another sharp contrast to the Okami vibe that LostWinds projects: Instead of bringing life to a dying land, you're spending time in ugly locales with no visual reward waiting for you. Combine this with the dreamy woodwind soundtrack accompanying your every move, and you have a game that simply lacks any semblance of energy. ''

See how the words ''No visual rewards'' and ''dreamy woodwind soundtrack'' quantifies the ''lack of any semblance of energy.''



It's a start that your reading the good and the bad, but how about actually picking apart the actual text to say a review is bad. I can show you one that I have done with Mirror's Edge.
[QUOTE=''insanejedi''] Well you have to look at the bench mark for what exactly 10$ can get you elseware. Frankly I never agree with the ''it's only 5 hours'' sorta mark, but 10$ can also get you something like Bionic Commando which easily has more than 5 hours of content bosted with other stuff in it. If a game is only 3 hours long, and if you go through it once and that's all you see, and it wasn't particularly the best 3 hours you ever spent in a game, then it's not really a good value.[/QUOTE]Right, but that's not the benchmark. The benchmark is how much time we expect from a full-priced game in the same genre (in this case, a platformer.) This game's equivalent would be an 18-hour full-priced platformer, which is good value. How good of a game (i.e. whether they were ''the best 3 hours you ever spent in a game'') it is should be a separate evaluation, not only because that is irrelevant to the ''value'' (i.e. you can even say a good game that's only 8 hours long for $60 is not good value, also, if a game's quality is taken into consideration in determining value, it renders the whole separate category of ''value'' redundant) but because people have highly variable notions of worth, because people's attitudes to money are highly variable, and that subjectivity (how much one values $1) shouldn't be compounded by adding in the game's quality (how much one values the game.)[QUOTE=''insanejedi'']And with the points of it being ''sleepy'' or ''lack of energy'' I think you have to remember that reviews are subjective to a point. Stylistic and artistic choices can only be quantified by the reviewer.[/QUOTE] I don't know what you mean by ''quantified'', but my point is that you can't take off marks for all games that aren't action-packed simply because you don't like that. Reviews on a professional level are supposed to be helpful to others rather than just personal expressions of the freedom of speech. It's not helpful to others if you simply don't like an entire styIe or genre of games and mark them down simply because of that. ''Sleepy'' and ''dreamy'' are not innately good or bad indicators (similar to terms like ''sports game'' or ''broccoli''); it's only how you feel about those descriptors that makes it seem good or bad to you. Thus, marks should not be taken off for these kinds of terms.This is quite different from descriptors like ''buggy'' or ''unpolished'', which are innately bad. Every review needs personal judgment by describing the game with labels. But if those terms are neutral, then the subjectivity of the review should not be compounded by further use of personal judgment to decide whether those neutral terms are good or bad.
[QUOTE=''clicketyclick''][QUOTE=''insanejedi''] Well you have to look at the bench mark for what exactly 10$ can get you elseware. Frankly I never agree with the ''it's only 5 hours'' sorta mark, but 10$ can also get you something like Bionic Commando which easily has more than 5 hours of content bosted with other stuff in it. If a game is only 3 hours long, and if you go through it once and that's all you see, and it wasn't particularly the best 3 hours you ever spent in a game, then it's not really a good value.[/QUOTE]Right, but that's not the benchmark. The benchmark is how much time we expect from a full-priced game in the same genre (in this case, a platformer.) This game's equivalent would be an 18-hour full-priced platformer, which is good value. How good of a game it is should be a separate evaluation, not only because that is irrelevant to the ''value'' (i.e. you can even say a good game that's only 8 hours long for $60 is not good value, and if a games quality is taken into consideration in determining value, it renders the whole separate category of ''value'' redundant) but because people have highly variable notions of worth, because people's attitudes to money are highly variable, and that subjectivity (how much one values $1) shouldn't be compounded by adding in the game's quality (how much one values the game.) [QUOTE=''insanejedi'']And with the points of it being ''sleepy'' or ''lack of energy'' I think you have to remember that reviews are subjective to a point. Stylistic and artistic choices can only be quantified by the reviewer.[/QUOTE] I don't know what you mean by ''quantified'', but my point is that you can't take off marks for all games that aren't action-packed simply because you don't like that. Reviews on a professional level are supposed to be helpful to others rather than just personal expressions of the freedom of speech. It's not helpful to others if you simply don't like an entire styIe or genre of games and mark them down simply because of that. ''Sleepy'' and ''dreamy'' are not innately good or bad indicators (like similar to ''sports game'' or ''broccoli''); it's only how you feel about those descriptors that makes it seem good or bad to you. Thus, marks should not be taken off for these kinds of terms.This is quite different from descriptors like ''buggy'' or ''unpolished'', which are innately bad. Every review needs personal judgment by describing the game with adjectives. But if those adjectives are neutral, then the subjectivity of the review should not be compounded by further use of personal judgment to decide whether those neutral terms are good or bad.[/QUOTE] A: I don't think that value and how good a game is should be irrelevant to each other. A game can be absolute crap and have 200 hours of content. Does that make it a good value? No. 1/10th of a pound of steak or 6 pounds of (literal) crap for the same price. All reviewers I have heard has experessed the same general feeling. Length is not what really matters to them anymore it's the experience, and length can actually hinder the experience since some games can be too long. Granted they are people who are not 13 and not have jobs, so all they can do is play that one game for the whole year. But that's something you have to identify with the reviewer and how they think. You can also not multiply a downloadable game with linear arithmetics. A 3 hour 10$ game multiplied over 5 or 6 times does not work at all. That sort of calculation is as reliable as taking a game that was rated 5.0 and taking a game that is a 10, and saying the 5.0 is half as good as the 10. There is a different expectation from the legit of a downloadable game, a full priced game, a budget priced game, and even genre conventions such as a shooter and an RPG. For example, 15 hours is short for an RPG but 15 hours is long for a shooter. Reviews can only be explained by the experiences the reviewer had. A reviewer is not a robot and a game is not a program. It is certainly easier to review a game than a painting or even a movie, because paintings and movies do not really have bugs, glitches, unpolished technical graphics and so on. But reviewing the art and the feel of the game can only be judged by the reviewer, and that is why reviews are subjective. The important thing when you explain the subjective parts of your review is you back it up with something. The main reason why no one can understand why GTA 4 got it's 10's is because every reviewer wanted to be ''objective'' and you couldn't explain why it got the 10's objectively because the story is only something a single person can interpret for. It's the same for every other entertainment experience, you can only explain so much of that objectively, that eventually your going to have to talk about it subjectively. Agian, reviewers are not robots and games are not some program or mathamatical formula that there is only one way to say it's right. The reviewer cannot vouch for the experience someone else might have, he can only talk about the experience HE HAD WITH THE GAME.
[QUOTE=''DJSAV_101''][QUOTE=''Bigboi500'']The FE: Radiant Dawn and ToS2: Dawn of the New World reviews spring to mind.[/QUOTE]same here. [/QUOTE]TP comes to mind. I agreed with what Jeff said, but I think he should've deemed it AAA solely for its quality.Metroid Prime 3 for sure. I honestly don't know what Kev is talking about. That game was magnificent.
[QUOTE=''insanejedi''] I don't think that value and how good a game is should be irrelevant to each other. A game can be absolute crap and have 200 hours of content. Does that make it a good value? No.[/QUOTE]You're proving my point. Whether the game is good or bad has nothing to do with the value. This was a side comment based on what you had said, not on anything in the review.[QUOTE=''insanejedi''] You can also not multiply a downloadable game with linear arithmetics. A 3 hour 10$ game multiplied over 5 or 6 times does not work at all. That sort of calculation is as reliable as taking a game that was rated 5.0 and taking a game that is a 10, and saying the 5.0 is half as good as the 10. There is a different expectation from the legit of a downloadable game, a full priced game, a budget priced game, and even genre conventions such as a shooter and an RPG. For example, 15 hours is short for an RPG but 15 hours is long for a shooter.[/QUOTE]Which is why I said that ''the benchmark is how much time we expect from a full-priced game in the same genre''. Expectations of downloadable (aka. lower-priced games) are based on the value (i.e. dollars per gameplay hour) we expect from the same type of full-priced game. Or in other words, for each genre, we have a Value Expectation, expressed as a range of numbers in the units of $/hr, and this applies to all games in the genre, whether downloadable or store bought.[QUOTE=''insanejedi'']Reviews can only be explained by the experiences the reviewer had. A reviewer is not a robot and a game is not a program. It is certainly easier to review a game than a painting or even a movie, because paintings and movies do not really have bugs, glitches, unpolished technical graphics and so on. But reviewing the art and the feel of the game can only be judged by the reviewer, and that is why reviews are subjective. The important thing when you explain the subjective parts of your review is you back it up with something. The main reason why no one can understand why GTA 4 got it's 10's is because every reviewer wanted to be ''objective'' and you couldn't explain why it got the 10's objectively because the story is only something a single person can interpret for. It's the same for every other entertainment experience, you can only explain so much of that objectively, that eventually your going to have to talk about it subjectively. Agian, reviewers are not robots and games are not some program or mathamatical formula that there is only one way to say it's right. The reviewer cannot vouch for the experience someone else might have, he can only talk about the experience HE HAD WITH THE GAME.[/QUOTE]You're not reading what I'm writing, or at least not reading carefully enough. I never demanded that a review be objective; I in fact acknowledged in my last post that subjectivity is necessary in a review. My argument is that this subjectivity should not be compounded by applying one's own personal idiosyncratic notions about neutral terms. If a game is a sports game, then that's what it is (or at least what the reviewer thinks it is) and this is neither good nor bad. If a game has a dreamy soundtrack, then this is what (the reviewer thinks) it is and this is neither good nor bad. If the game has mushrooms in it, then this is what it has and this is neither good nor bad. A person's personal tastes on whether they like sports games, dreamy music, or mushrooms should not enter into it.
[QUOTE=''clicketyclick''][URL=http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/lostwinds/review.html]GS's LostWinds review[/URL]: It's a downloadable game, and the score should reflect that reality.



I'd also like to see some consistency in taking marks off for spending some time surrounded by ''dreary blue rock'' in the ''murky depths'' of mines - do they take marks off for spending an entire game in drab, murky browns?



There is also inconsistency within the review itself. It says that ''the gameplay mechanics at first seem like they are going to push the genre forward, but they fall short before any progress is made,'' but later calls it ''innovative gameplay mechanics''. If it falls short, it doesn't innovate.



Also, taking points off for being ''sleepy'' and having a ''lack of energy'' and a ''dreamy woodwind soundtrack'' is not legitimate.



I'd wager there are very few people who downloaded but did not finish the game.[/QUOTE]



Even as a downloadable game it's not good. It is boring and there's very little to motivate the gamer to play.



Maybe the difference is that in many brown games, you're too busy having fun to notice how blah the environment is. This follows suit with the ''sleepy'' issue as well. If the game doesn't make you want to play it, then there's something wrong. If I make a game that consists of crumpling paper, and I execute it perfectly, that doesn't make it a good game if it's boring to play.



I'm not sure why you think it's inconsistent for the reviewer to state that the gameplay mechanics are innovative, but fall short. Using the wind to allow you to solve puzzles and platform is innovative. Unfortunately, there's just not enough meat there.



Count me among one of the very few. I tried numerous times to play this game. And, it's just not fun. The game plays like a really long tutorial or demo.
[QUOTE=''Skie7'']



Even as a downloadable game it's not good. It is boring and there's very little to motivate the gamer to play.



Maybe the difference is that in many brown games, you're too busy having fun to notice how blah the environment is. This follows suit with the ''sleepy'' issue as well. If the game doesn't make you want to play it, then there's something wrong. If I make a game that consists of crumpling paper, and I execute it perfectly, that doesn't make it a good game if it's boring to play.



I'm not sure why you think it's inconsistent for the reviewer to state that the gameplay mechanics are innovative, but fall short. Using the wind to allow you to solve puzzles and platform is innovative. Unfortunately, there's just not enough meat there.



Count me among one of the very few. I tried numerous times to play this game. And, it's just not fun. The game plays like a really long tutorial or demo.[/QUOTE]



Yet not even you think it deserves the score it got.



Innovation is by definition the pushing forward of an area - it is making changes to an established area through introduction of new concepts. Dictionary definition of ''to innovate''. It implies progression; you wouldn't say something innovates if it does things worse than how they are - unless you were using the word sarcastically. So to say that a platformer's controls are frustrating and imprecise, that the mechanics only ''at first seem'' as though they're going to push forward but don't... and then say that it is innovative... is sending mixed signals.
[QUOTE=''clicketyclick'']Yet not even you think it deserves the score it got.



Innovation is by definition the pushing forward of an area - it is making changes to an established area through introduction of new concepts. Dictionary definition of ''to innovate''. It implies progression; you wouldn't say something innovates if it does things worse than how they are - unless you were using the word sarcastically. So to say that a platformer's controls are frustrating and imprecise, that the mechanics only ''at first seem'' as though they're going to push forward but don't... and then say that it is innovative... is sending mixed signals.[/QUOTE]



From my gaming experience, I gave it a 6.5. That doesn't mean I think the GS reviewer was wrong in their assessment. From the review they gave, it sounds like a 5.5 game. That doesn't mean I agree 100% with the review. There were a couple things the reviewer griped about that weren't (as) important to me.



dictionary.com

innovate - to introduce (something new) for or as if for the first time

innovative - being or producing something like nothing done or experienced or created before;



The controls are innovative, they are new and unique. There's just a failure to capitalize on the innovation. In addition the controls are imprecise reducing the enjoyment of being able to do something new.
[QUOTE=''sonic_spark''][QUOTE=''DJSAV_101''][QUOTE=''Bigboi500'']The FE: Radiant Dawn and ToS2: Dawn of the New World reviews spring to mind.[/QUOTE]same here. [/QUOTE]TP comes to mind. I agreed with what Jeff said, but I think he should've deemed it AAA solely for its quality.Metroid Prime 3 for sure. I honestly don't know what Kev is talking about. That game was magnificent.[/QUOTE]

I dont mind when big staples get lower scores, because everyone is going to buy them anyway its when smaller lesser known games get lower scores that bothers me cause then people miss out. Like Fire emblem its one of thoses games that people should play but lots of people dont.