|
||||
 |
 |
|||
| |
advertisement  Now, for a small bit of backstory, Paper Mario 2 has been receiving nearly universal great scores from gaming magazines and websites. A black spot in the lake, however, appears with Game Informer's review, giving it a less than admirable 6.75. Many people, rightfully so, became angry with this score, especially when the text of the review itself commended the game for being well-made and enjoyable. On their forums, the Game Informer reviewers defended their decision: "GI-Jeremy wrote: Lisa and I both knew that our Paper Mario scores were going to cause controversy. Yes, we know that many people out there will love it. We also know that it is a well-made game. However, it also WILL NOT appeal to many people - I would safely say that more people will dislike it than like it. Why? Like we said in the review, it's a very kiddie game - it's target audience is clearly young gamers - I would say 10 and under. For that reason, we had to score it low. Remember, we aren't scoring games strictly on our personal opinions, we're also scoring them based on how much we think THE GAMING PUBLIC will like them. We've all played games that we personally disliked and scored them well because we've known that most people will like them, and we've also scored games low that we love, because most people won't enjoy them. For example, I really like the bizarre frog golf game Ribbit King, and I gave it a 7, because it's just not for everyone. Paper Mario 2 also scored low because it's just not for everyone. If you think it's a 10 in your book, it's a ten in your book, and that doesn't change if we disagree. We're here to guide you on what games to pick up, but ultimately your personal opinion is what will make you buy a game or not. I hope this helps." According to Game Informer, a game can't get a good score unless it sells well. It's a terrible argument anyway, but it becomes even worse when it shows itself to be inconsistent. I'm not entirely sure Rapala Pro Fishing is any more "mainstream" than Mario, GI. There was even more public outcry against this, particularly coming from fans of the magazine who saw this as unfair. Game Informer once again used their message boards to spew their idiotic statements, except this time, they backpeddled like a toddler on his trike. "Thanks for writing. There has been a lot said about the post I made in our forums, most of which, like your letter, is completely fair and valid. In a fit of irritation, I posted said message without really thinking about it, and have lived to regret it. Everyone here scores games based on their personal opinions, not based on what we think the public wants to hear. If we scored based on what people wanted to hear, Paper Mario 2 would have gotten a much higher score, like a 9 or a 10. But that's not how we do things. What I meant in my message on our forums is that I thought the majority of gamers would feel like I did about Paper Mario 2 – disappointment once they got their hands on it. I didn't mean to imply that I thought about how the public would perceive a title when scoring it, I just meant that I thought those who agreed with my score would outnumber those vocal opponents of my score. I'm sorry to hear that this incident has caused you to distrust the magazine in any way. You shouldn't. Everyone here is honest and up front about their opinions, and scores games accordingly. You can feel free to distrust me if you want (although I think I am being quite honest with you in admitting that I publicly screwed up), but don't let it spoil your opinion of everyone else here, the work they do, or the publication that we put out. Thank you, Jeremy Zoss Associate Editor Game Informer Magazine" Basically what they're saying is that "Whoops! I totally didn't mean anything in that first post, but it doesn't change that Paper Mario is too kiddy for people and I dislike it." But wait. Who was it that said the game was "well-made" and "enjoyable?" Was it Jeremey Zoss? It was in fact. So, has he changed his mind since his review? Why should we trust his reviews in the first place then? Where's the line between the scores and the text? Where's the line between "kiddy" and "quality"? As a life-long gamer, I find this sort of pandering, "we <3 GTA clones" bullshit intolerable. Game Informer is basically spitting in the face of gamers everywhere by telling them that games that don't involve blood and violence are crap, games that don't sell well don't deserve scores, and you're too old to be playing Mario. I for one will not be purchasing a Game Informer again, not until they get their act together. Not that I had a subscription to begin with, but they've lost my respect as a fellow reviewer and my trust as a gamer. In the best case scenario, Jeremy and Lisa are two reviewers who are incompetent beyond reason. In the worst case scenario, Game Informer has a very skewed reviewing system that is focused more on how many people will buy the game instead of whether or not the reviewer didn't enjoy it. Their Enter the Matrix score, an 8.5, seems to help confirm the latter. But there are glaring inconsistencies - the above mentioned Rapala, for example. Or Mario & Luigi: Super Star Saga, scoring the rightful score of 9.5 by one of the same reviewers for Paper Mario 2. Some of these quotes are beyond misrepresentation - something the EIC of Game Informer tried to "rationalize" (a.k.a. "spin") to members of the Gaming-Age forum in a thread discussing this very issue. Was Zoss lying then or is Game Informer lying now? Why can't they just fire these two? I have no problem whatsoever with disliking a game because of your own personal tastes. I may score Madden or GTA low, simply because those games do not appeal to me. The readership understands, however, that these are my own opinions of the game. If one wants to know what appeals to me and what doesn't about it, they should be bothered to read the text. However, the insanity begins when the text and the score don't match. They said they enjoyed the game, it's sitting in print in your local Game Informer magazine. They said it was well-made...if they didn't believe it, as they're claiming now, then why write it? Why print two back-peddles, but then delete the thread they were on? You can not bump a score down because a game won't appeal to a mass audience! It's idiotic! But what's just as bad is the subsequent lies and coverups Game Informer is trying to save its reputation. Either this is a matter of gross incompetence or an absolutely counter-intuitive reviewing system, but Game Informer will not admit to either. I'll leave it up to the readers of the column to decide what to do about Game Informer. Suffice it to say, they won't be getting a cent from me, not even from a Gamestop employee insisting "it's a great deal." -- Imran |
| |||||||
features • music • games • film • anime & manga • art & literature • columns • art & fashion • event photos • news • forum • letters • shopping • advertising • contact • who we are • home
© 2000-2009 J.I.V.E. Magazine, All rights reserved.
Please do not use the material or photographs published on JIVE Magazine without contacting us first.
All photography with the JIVE logo on it is specifically copyrighted by JIVE Magazine.