Page 1 of 4

 

Super Smash Bros. Brawl

 

 

Eddy Fettig, Editor - Reviews 

Any Nintendo fan knows the big happening of March '08: Super Smash Bros. Brawl has finally been released.  It's been over 6 years since the last entry in the series came out, and right up until Brawl's launch, a devout set of followers were still playing it.  With Brawl finally here, many fans are hopping onto the new train, joined by a flurry of newcomers. Was the wait worth it? Of course it was. But just how does Brawl live up to such lofty expectations? Does it merit the massive hype? Well, that's all a matter of opinion. Objectively speaking, though, Brawl has so much going for it that any fan of the series would be a fool to pass it up, and Nintendo fans in general -- or just fans of gaming, for that matter -- will likely be wooed by its completely obsessive catering to its fans through nostalgia, customization, and complexity.
 
 Smash Bros. is deceptively simple at first glance, so it's no wonder that so many more hardcore gamers write it off as a n00b's fighting game, but this is because Smash Bros. is a very different kind of fighting game. Rather than stamina-based, it's more like a sumo-match, with players trying to ring each other out.  Attacks increase a damage meter, and the higher the meter reaches, the farther characters are sent flying.
 
 Is Brawl Super Smash Bros. Melee 2.0? That's all a matter of perspective. Hardcore fans will see the differences between the two (mechanics-wise) like night and day, while more casual players may hardly notice a difference. Either way, Brawl is sure to satisfy both camps. There's a lot more polish into subtle nuts and bolts in the game's engine which make it easier to play for newcomers and help make the engine more smoothed out and sensible for hardcore players. As a long-time Smash player, I have to admit that I am overall very pleased with the changes in the game's mechanics, not to mention the subtle ways characters have been reworked so as to better balance out the game. Brawl incorporates a number of minor tweaks to help keep things balanced and interesting, from items backfiring to stale moves getting punished.

 

Super Smash Bros. Brawl

 


 
 To further aid in enhancing the gameplay, a ton of new characters have been thrown in, adding to the wide variety of fighting styles. Yes, there are some clones, but even the clones feel more differentiated than ever, serving as alternate takes on the same fighting style. A few characters (such as Mario and Luigi) appear to be clones at first, but a few minutes of playing and you'll realize that they are quite different, only sharing similarities in a few of their moves. I won't go into spoilers, but characters like Olimar, Snake, and Sonic all offer something completely new as far as fighting styles go. One of Brawl's biggest appeals from a gameplay standpoint is perhaps learning each fighter's style and mastering everyone -- and this time around, every character is even more fun to play as than ever. Playing favorites is inevitable, but you will likely be much more curious and interested to try out everyone than in previous entries. More so than most fighting games in general, players will be interested and coerced into getting familiar with the entire group.
 
 While the gameplay itself has been retooled and smoothed out even further in proper sequel style, one of Brawl's biggest draws is its wealth of options and modes.  Players can play with any controller they want, edit button configurations, change a large number of parameters and rule sets...the possibilities are quite great, and no matter what type of player you are, Brawl will accommodate to your style. Even players who don't like the wide variety of excellent new (and old) levels will be able to create stages that fit their standards in the new Stage Builder. Speaking of which, user-generated content is in Brawl in a big way compared to most Nintendo titles of recent memory. Take snapshots at any time, save replay data from matches and certain events, build levels, and take pictures of your goody collections -- then share it with your friends through the internet service. It's a great deal of fun, and creative players will soak up hours upon hours playing with the Stage Builder and other user-generated content.
 
 There's simply so much to see, do, collect, and complete that it's ridiculous. Video games as a whole mostly pale in comparison to Brawl myriad of modes and unlockables. Trophies and stickers (which come in the hundreds) serve as a delightful trip through Nintendo's history over the years. Some Virtual Console demos can be unlocked, as well, aiding the cause of making more modern gamers aware of Nintendo's storied past. So many elements of Brawl, from specific character animation and moves to collectible objects and stage elements all congeal into one fangasm of Nintendo goodness -- not to mention the third party doors that have been opened with Snake and Sonic, who fit in flawlessly with everyone else.

 

Super Smash Bros. Brawl

 


 
 There are so many more details that could be pulled out in support of Brawl, but what complaints can be had? There are a few, minor as they may be. For starters, the Stage Builder can feel somewhat limiting. This may frustrate some, but others will embrace it and use their ingenuity to create all types of great stages -- just as users have created unbelievable Miis in the Check Mii Out Channel. One noticeable issue is that of loading times: the game needs roughly ten to twenty seconds of start-up loading whenever it's booting, and throughout gameplay, loading times are sprinkled throughout -- this can be a tad annoying at first, but gamers have dealt with this issue for years now, and if some loading times are the price to pay for such a truckload of content, the trade is worth it.  Trophies can also feel a bit confined, since they don't feature the same breadth as trophies in Melee -- but again, this is counterbalanced by the humongous collection of stickers which cover anything you can imagine from the house that Mario built. Nintendo also seems to have trouble with the online component, and since I could not successfully use the online gameplay aspect of the title, I can't recount any solid facts on this matter except that the fact it's there in the first place will satisfy many fans.
 
 My final issue with the game is, in some ways, a non-issue, as it involves something completely optional and unnecessary to the game's core: The Subspace Emissary. These days, players expect campaign modes from FPS titles, but not from fighting games. Brawl attempts to deliver a large, side-scrolling, 2D action/platformer/beat-'em'up...It succeeds in its basic goal, but does not have near the same level of polish as the multiplayer component. The level design is usually bland, the enemies are mostly generic, and the locations are almost always ordinary, as well (detailed as they may be). Only two boss characters and two or three normal enemies actually spawn from Nintendo games. The rest are generic baddies that come off as the cousins of the Heartless from the Kingdom Hearts series. This is missed potential, not to mention that some characters just don't work as well within the context of platforming. That said, this mode acts as a single-player (or co-op) focused means of unlocking all of the secret characters and other goodies. Despite its issues, it is still mostly enjoyable to play in bursts, though it would likely feel repetitive to many in a marathon play-through. Back with Melee, players complained and said they wanted a revamped Adventure mode. The Subspace Emissary is far from perfect, but fulfills that request in most every facet one could hope for.
 
 As for fan requests for characters and all manner of other things, it's impossible to please everyone and include everything, but Brawl's roster and stage selection are quite large and packed with quality. However, one aspect of great note that will not disappoint any reasonable fan is the soundtrack. Comprised of over two hundred musical tracks, some remixes, some original versions, Brawl's soundtrack is one of the largest and highest quality collections of tunes video games has ever bore witness to, and for every song a player dislikes, there's just as many, if not more, that they'll love, and the My Music option lets players choose which songs they want to hear on levels. Such a wide variety of composers and sources of music makes the soundtrack quite a crowning achievement.

 

Super Smash Bros. Brawl

 
 As for the graphical presentation, Brawl delivers some stylish and comical cutscenes in The Subspace Emissary, as well as colorful menus bursting with subtle animations. The game's graphical detail is great, though some areas lack a bit -- but the artistic design pushes this up to one of the Wii's best-looking titles. Perhaps more noticeable than the graphical details, however, is the animation: a smooth-as-silk sixty frames per second brings all of the characters to life more than ever before, and their animations are so finely detailed (including a wide variety of facial expressions) that it adds to the satisfaction of playing it just to see the characters move so fluidly.

 


Next Page
Pages: 1  2  3  4  
Final Verdict - 10/10
What more is there to say about Smash Bros. Brawl? A lot, actually -- far too much for a review. There is simply so much content packed in this title that it makes fifty dollars a ticket to many, many hours of playtime. Take into account the deep customization, barrage of unlockables and game modes, online components, and the polish and balance of it all, and Brawl is quite a force to be reckoned with, expanding those hours of value into months, if not years of good times. Any crazed fanboy who is disappointed with Brawl is blinded by pride, as this title is top notch value, fanservice, and multiplayer mayhem. For the Nintendo fan, the Smash Bros. fan, or the fan of video games in general, be they newcomers or hardened veterans, Brawl is a must-have title that has far too much to offer to be passed up, and bends itself to accommodate to gamers of all types. This is simply as good as it gets in the medium of video games, especially for multiplayer fun. This game is packed to the brim with everything a gamer could want -- the only question is: How will Nintendo outdo this brilliant title?

Latest Comments
ZentendoUser
March 18, 2008, 06:37 PM
TSA, this is poor journalism at its worst.

You had a chance to let your well-argued dissenting opinion be heard, and you intentionally hired three Smash "fanboys" (in your own words) to review the game and praise the heck out of it, while your score isn't even factored.

If this wasn't done to appease the fanboys, I don't know what it is. Even if you had counted your 6, (10+10+10+6)/4 is still a 9/10. Unfortunately, as a long-time avid Zentendo reader, I've lost a lot of faith in your site due to this.
ZentendoUser
March 18, 2008, 06:39 PM
"Any crazed fanboy who is disappointed with Brawl is blinded by pride, as this title is top notch value, fanservice, and multiplayer mayhem. "

And I'll offer my rebuttal: Anyone who blindly praises Smash while not acknowledging its blatant faults -- SSE and online: the game's two biggest selling points which both failed to deliver -- is taken over by hype.
Mike Damiani
March 18, 2008, 06:58 PM
I don't think you quite understand journalistic integrity.  I stand by what my staff says because they can stand up for their own opinions.  Simply having me go around, overriding my staff and posting what I want is surpressing somebody's vocie.  That is not ethical, in the realm of journalism, politics or the public forum.  If you want this to be more like a corporation where we sell products, or try to sell Nintendo's products, then yes, I should override anyone's voice so long as it is for the good of the company.  However, that is not what we are, and so I can't go around just overriding people's opinions.  I was very torn whether I should even include a modified version of my blog post in the official review text, but I figured it could be a "second opinion" type piece that I've seen in other publications, which is not an official score but just a counter.  
Merlin "MRLN" HandsTeller
March 18, 2008, 07:36 PM
You tell 'em, TSA.  I agree with everybody here, actually.  The three 10's, I found myself just nodding along, agreeing with everything they said.  It really isn't blind love, it's perfectly justified to love the multiplayer, think of the SSE as an interesting extra.

Also, TSA's review should've been factored to make this rating a 9.5.  The 10'ers seemed to have forgotten that the SSE is really a bit too big to be considered a mere extra, and should be counted against the final score (I actually really liked this mode, but then again, I also like MPH's control scheme and the TotOK so who's asking me?).  Also, there's the whole online component that people felt flopped.  I wouldn't MIND extras here, but deep down, I know most of the time I'd be doing just basic Brawls (just like MPH, coincidentially).

Brawl fits MY agenda, so I'd give it a 10.  But we have to recognize that everyone has different tastes, and mabye the really story-driven person who loves adventures and reaps online rewards would indeed be disappointed.  You just have to respect these people.
ZentendoUser
March 18, 2008, 07:48 PM
So TSA, why is your opinion any less valid than the others'? I didn't ask you to override their opinions, but the fact that you intentionally didn't factor in your score raises a lot of suspicion. After all, you wrote just as much as they did, and your writing qualifies as a "review" as much as theirs.

You claim that you're not trying to help Nintendo sell its products, and yet you find excuses not to include your opinion just because it's a negative one. At the very least, average out the four scores, and still end up with a 9/10. This way, you can respect their opinions, and make your opinion hold some weight.
Borrie
March 18, 2008, 07:54 PM
When I first got Brawl, I played for a good 12 hours before even touching SSE. The game is great, and it lives up to the hype in my opinion. SSE was basically a very long version of an Intro movie (something sadly, Brawl lacks in. The Intro movie is very... artificial.) which shows a great introduction to the characters. Just it had a little gameplay thrown in.

Its all about opinions when it comes to things like this, but I believe TSA portrayed a popular opinion of this game quite well.
Luigi
March 18, 2008, 08:25 PM
I must say, TSA, what you said is very respectable.  I admit, I've always been a little bit skeptical of your opinion, as sometimes I find it a little bit radical.  But even so, while I find your rating of Brawl as a bit radical, your ability to negotiate with your own staff and decide what's right to keep the hype of a game up or to support what other fans think is great.  Even swallowing your own opinions is respectable in itself.
Kudos.
Santuli
March 18, 2008, 09:10 PM
Nah, I always liked TSA's opinions, whether I agree with them or not. That's the thing that I like about him the most though, he respects others' opinions a lot...something that many obviously have problems with everywhere. Yea, I guess they can be a bit "radical", but its refreshing, not the same stuff you read from every single journalist in this field.

I liked the reviews though. All of them shared the same basic views on each part of the game, and I agree pretty much.
Element.
March 18, 2008, 11:16 PM
I really don't agree with TSA's points of view about this game, but I respect his opinion. Anyway, great score! I love when reviews have a lot of pages where they explain clearly why a game deserves certain score. Good job Zentendo.
Eddy "D_S" Fettig
March 19, 2008, 12:17 AM
ZentendoUser, if you hate our site so much, why do you still come here? I can't help but wonder.
Every time I see your name, I always see negativity with it.
Just being critical, are you?

And by the way, this wasn't done to appease fanboys, it was done because, evidently, three of us think this game is the bomb. And I feel pretty confident that my review stacks objective evidence with my own opinion. And that's just what a review IS: an opinion.

Letting his voice be heard just for the sake of hearing it is just as much an appeasement as you seem to think three people agreeing on its quality is. I would love if Mike added his review score to ours if he feels the need to. I don't care about the score, really, I don't see why you DO, it's just a number.

Last time I checked, reviews are here for our staff to express their opinions on a title's quality with some objective evidence to back it up and persuade or dissuade who we feel as the intended audience to buy or avoid the game, not suck in attention by being radical.

And for the record, I pointed out in my review the flaws of SSE -- couldn't point out the flaws of online since I can't USE it. In the end, however, neither of those two factors, to me, are what make the game have a purpose, so I can much more easily write them off in favor of what Smash is REALLY about.  I do agree that they were two of the game's biggest sellest points, but to me, a Smash fan, the characters, levels, and stage builder were much more selling points than the SSE, and even THEN, I feel that if you took the SSE completely out, this game would still be pretty damned packed with content and value.

I'm also a bit unsure as to where people are getting off complaining about Brawl's online when, compared to anything else on the Wii, it seems to have a lot of competition beat -- share snapshots, replays, levels, and play with friends or anyone, totally customizing play with Friends. What other Wii games have that for online? Can't compare it to 360 because it's not ON 360, and you can't just say, "It's not everything I wanted" because, well, you have to look at it for what it is.

Anyway, I'm really glad Mike put his take here -- can't say I get where he's coming from, but hey, that's the whole point -- if you're more like me, read my review. If you're more like Mike, read his. And thanks for setting things straight, Mike.
Simmaria
March 19, 2008, 01:57 AM
Keep in mind that even though I gave the game a ten, My review did not simply heap nothing but praise on the title. Nothing is perfect, but to me what heavily counts into a games score factor is how much effort can be seen that was put into the game. Look at something like Metroid Prime 1, you can see where Retro worked their asses off to create a faithful Metroid in 3-D. With this game you can tell in nearly every asset that the development studio really worked hard to not just crank out a by the numbers sequel but really make something that would stand out beyond the hardwares own lifecycle. Even though it isn't out yet, look at all that has been revealed in Mario Kart Wii. I am sorry but that game really stands out as a simple by the numbers sequel, half the tracks re used, theres no real mode additions, the biggest change really is  motorcycles, and while motorcycles are cool, its not even as fresh as double dash's attempt to be different. and then theres Mario Party, after 8 games how much has that series broken the mold and gone above whats expected in a sequel.

I take a step back and look at the leaps game sequels have made over their previous installments and I cant really think of anything that tops the amount of content upgrade that brawl has. Yes tripping is an idea spawned from the brain of satan himself and the trophy collection could really have been a lot more diverse, but they dont ruin a game for me, and they have barely made a dent at all in my experience playing. I stand by my review, and I will state right now, I really dont expect to hand out another ten this year and maybe years to come. and if I do then thats one time I would love to be wrong.
ZentendoUser
March 19, 2008, 04:50 AM
Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I fail to see where all the "content" and "effort" are. Aren't half the stages reused in the form of Melee Stages? Aren't many of the new stages just clones of old ones? (Mute City --< Port City; Icicle Mountain --> Rumble Falls) Aren't the modes exactly the same old except Boss Rush and SSE?

As for all the other additions...are they really all that significant? Some of the remixes in My Music are of dubious quality, as there are numerous tracks for which I could find better versions of on OCRemix and ZREO. IMHO, they should have picked the most recognizable tracks from each franchise and orchestrated them, instead of clogging up the game disc with numerous medium- to low-quality remixes and slowing down loading times. The loading times are awful, and when I have to wait 20 seconds to load up an event, that's really not satisfactory.

Coin Launcher is just a repetitive minigame, fun at first but tedious when you're trying to get your 300th unique trophy. Masterpieces serve only to advertise the VC. Chronicle is useless given nintendo.com's up-to-date gamelist. Stickers are just another gimmick, whose randomness serves only to artifically inflate the game's length. (There's a trophy for collecting all 700.) We had challenges in Melee, too, though not in a separate filler section -- and this time around, many of them were intentionally designed to be extremely tedious (brawl 100 hours, complete every mode with every character, beat every mode on Intense, etc.).

I don't know...it could be just a different or overly pessimistic perspective, but there really wasn't anything that amazed me in this game. Mario Galaxy was a different story: I marveled at the ingenuity and charm in almost every level.
lefthandedlink
March 19, 2008, 10:04 AM
Um... stages that are clones? And what about the stages that AREN'T? You leave out the majority, and focus on the small tidbits that don't really even affect you. If you don't like the stages that "are clones," don't play them. Dude, Brawl is so customizable, you can make your perfect utopia out of it. Choose which settings and options are best for you, and go from there. Don't rant about two stages that are similar to past ones.

 So please, just shut up about the small things in Brawl that make it bad.

but to me, a Smash fan, the characters, levels, and stage builder were much more selling points than the SSE
>.>

Eddy. Smash is about characters and stages, yes. But what makes Smash far more unique than every other fighting game is the items.

My post from Mike's blog:

Online isn't even that bad.

And quit whining, online play is FREE. Are you forgetting that Brawl didn't even have to have an online mode or a huge adventure mode? Do you guys not realize that these two features are just ADDING on to how good Brawl is?

I'm not trying to sound like a fan boy, but call me what you want.
Brawl, as I have played, is probably the best game and most addicting game since Melee.

One thing that makes Smash Bros so unique from other fighting games is the items. In Melee, items were HORRIBLY used. It was better in the first game when you couldn't throw in midair, because that's all people did in Melee. In Brawl, we are given items that actually serve more purpose than just throwing them. Look at the cracker launcher: it's a really fun item to use, and it serves more purpose than just throwing. The gooey bomb makes things more havoc, as each player tries to give it away. If anything's changed and done right from Melee to Brawl, it's item usage.

Today I played Online for the first time. The only thing that sucked was the random play. But that's only because one of the other three players had terrible connection.
When I played against ZeRinku and Santi, things were perfect. It felt like I was sitting next to them.

Anyways, I have to sleep.

But the thing is, remember that Brawl gave us so many things that it didn't have to-- and now people are neglecting these free given features. It's a shame, really. If you don't like how the adventure mode and online mode is done, don't play it. It isn't required. Melee didn't have a big adventure and online capabilities, so why are you complaining that Brawl hasn't improved?

That's my say in it. [/end]

And also, I heard from a lot of complainers that the SSE is just fanservice.

May I kindly put that the whole of Smash is fanservice?

Of course the adventure mode is fanservice, because what, in Smash, ISN'T? The adventure mode could have had a worse plot. To me, the Subspace Emissary's plot was the best possible. Let me ask you complainers a question. What did you expect from a Smash Bros. adventure mode? Isn't what was presented the best plot you could think of? It was better to have a totally new character play as the villain instead of Ganondorf or Bowser be one.

Like I said, Online and the Subspace Emissary were just add-ons to Brawl. Without them, Brawl would still be as kick-ass as ever.
Jordanime
March 19, 2008, 10:39 AM
If you dislike Brawl, I think the primary reason is because you have no friends to play it with.  Its ultamately a social game--much like Halo.  A 7/10 is totally unreasonable. From an objective standpoint. 
Merlin "MRLN" HandsTeller
March 19, 2008, 01:46 PM
I actually think a 7/10 is perfectly reasonable.  It's easy to love this game, it;s easy to hate it.
Santuli
March 19, 2008, 02:47 PM
Personally, I dont think that Brawl didnt NEED to have Online. Today, Online gameplay is a standard and expectation for successful multiplayer games, and now that Nintendo has entered the realm of online play, Brawl had to have it.

Dont get me wrong, I would have bought it anyways. Melee didnt have it because it wasnt such a big thing back then. But now...well, things have changed a lot.

But seriously, this "clone" stage nonsense...I dont even consider them a clone! With Smash, the moment somone sees similarities in two things they yell "CLONE!"

Ok, so Port City is of the same style as Mute City...so? An F Zero stage would either be a "clone" of Mute City or Blue Falcon. The background will be that of a race going on. Port City is of the same STYLE. The actual layout is quite different. Look more at the parts where the platforms disappears and you're just left standing. Clone means an exact duplicate of something else.

Rumble Falls has quite a bit more going on than Icicle Mountain....besides having oh so much more character than bland, ol' Icicle Mountain.

Other than that...well, you still got Battlefield and FD, but what could you expect from those? Metroid Stages, Zelda Stages, Mario Stages, Star Fox Stages...all different. Sonic and MG stages, Pikmin, Warioware, Animal Crossing, Fire Emblem, Kid Icarus Pictochat, Retros, Kirby...are those clones?

Other than the two that you mentioned, the most clonish other stage is Pokemon Stadium, and I really wouldnt consider it one, since the stage is more often affected by changes than being the regular battlefield, and those are different and affect the area much more than the ones in Melee's

Take away the Brawl stages you call clones, and you still have one hell of a number that doesnt even come close to the number of Melee stages (therefore, the claim that half the stages are Melee ones is false). And then you have Custom Stages. Its your fault if you dont spend any time with that though.

Stages are one thing, in my opinion, that has been done extremely well in Brawl, and little more could have been asked for for them
ZentendoUser
March 19, 2008, 03:08 PM
"If you dislike Brawl, I think the primary reason is because you have no friends to play it with.  Its ultamately a social game--much like Halo.  A 7/10 is totally unreasonable. From an objective standpoint."

And here come the ad hominem attacks that Smash fanboys are so well-known for. Brawl has online, so this shouldn't even be a factor. Multiplayer can't cover for the fact that much of Brawl is underwhelming.
ZentendoUser
March 19, 2008, 03:10 PM
"Like I said, Online and the Subspace Emissary were just add-ons to Brawl. Without them, Brawl would still be as kick-ass as ever. "

They were the two biggest selling points in Nintendo's advertising campaign for this game. You can't just disregard them; in fact, they should be worth the bulk of the review score because the rest of the game merely builds on a tried-and-true formula that, at its core, hasn't changed since a decade ago.
lefthandedlink
March 19, 2008, 03:17 PM
But since when has Smash been about its adventure and now, online mode?

The primary reason to buy any Smash game is to play with friends. Smash is always about playing with others...

Trust me, Adventure mode, the SSE, is something in which you don't have to play at all. If you don't like it, why play it? And don't say, "get the characters," because there's other ways of getting each character.

Finally, Online is as good as ever, really. people are just lazy to go get friend codes...
Jordanime
March 19, 2008, 03:43 PM
Quote
I actually think a 7/10 is perfectly reasonable.  It's easy to love this game, it;s easy to hate it.

Not objectively.  For instance, I dislike Bioshock, but from an objective point of view, I can understand why it gets 9's. 

The primary flaws people tend to point out are what isn't in the game, rather than all that is.  I don't think that's how you should examine it. 

And lets face it, playing a game with friends in the same room is always more gratifying than playing a game online.
Matt Simmons
March 19, 2008, 03:55 PM
As already stated, only 9 out of the 41 stages are from melee, and your completely neglecting the fact of the custom stages and the that you receive a new stage every single day. so really there isn't an argument there.

I have also stated that I personally have not had any online issues with the game, whether its just me being incredibly lucky is irrelevant, and most of my part of the review was nothing but pointing out the negative aspects of Nintendo's online service.

Zelda has not changed its core mechanics since 1991, arguably ever, Mario Galaxy is not any different then Super Mario 64, sure theres the added gravity effects and small planets, but both of those elements had been done before. The point is the core gameplay for all these series including Smash Bros. is still roughly the same, just expanded over time and still just as fun.  and I'm sorry but you don't review a game for its advertised features, you review it as a whole. That is what four of us did and 3/4 found it to our utmost satisfaction.

Let me pose another question, why would you want someone who does not like a game series or genre to review something within that series or genre? I gather most people, especially in this games case, have already made up their mind on if they are going to buy it or not. I don't exactly see the point in trying to lower a games review score simply because its hyped. This game is everything and more that was wanted to many people including myself, but for some people, like mike, it wasn't and theres nothing wrong with that, and as mike stated, his review is simply a dissenting opinion. If anything that shows a lot more integrity to say, "hey just to let everyone know not everyone here was blown away and heres why." 
Samuel71
March 19, 2008, 06:10 PM
That was a very good review, although I disagree with the perfect score.  I don't think the monotonous (other than the cut-scenes) Subspace Emissary, the bad online, and the extreme similarity to Melee should be totally disregarded.  Overall, though, it's a great game that deserves good reviews.
TheLytheon
March 19, 2008, 06:36 PM
My argument:

Me and my sisters and friends are having fun with it.  Take your arguments and hang them somewhere.  We don't care.  =D
keja
March 19, 2008, 07:22 PM
We had challenges in Melee, too, though not in a separate filler section -- and this time around, many of them were intentionally designed to be extremely tedious (brawl 100 hours, complete every mode with every character, beat every mode on Intense, etc.).

Well for one it's not meant to be beaten asap. How long  did it take to reach that in melee? By now if you check its probably far past anything needed to unlock on Brawl.

It's nice to see I'm not the only one who actually enjoyed SSE and I actually agree with pretty much everything, on the first 3 pages at least.
lefthandedlink
March 19, 2008, 08:48 PM
SSE was fun, especially the great maze level. I loved using ganny's spike against the weirrd-colored characters...

keja, why weren't you on wifi? i wanted to fight you
Aurelius
March 19, 2008, 09:25 PM
ZentendoUser, you make some very valid points.

That aside, perhaps we should admit something: if this was a fighter with generic characters that had no relation to Nintendo, it would be scoring at best 7/10. If you're not a Nintendo fan, this game will probably not interest you at all, just a bunch of strangers beating on each other. Many of the professional reviewers out there just admitted that their reviews simply had to be tailored toward the Nintendo fan, because the overriding pedigree of the franchise is simply seeing so many Nintendo characters brought together.

What a 10/10 score fails to note are the numerous flaws. The online and the singleplayer are the two major additions to Brawl. Both are seriously flawed, the SSE is monotonous and the online is bare bones, judging by my friend's experiences, laggy and often not working at all.

How is that 10/10 material? Reminds me of reviews giving Halo 3 high scores to avoid the wrath of fanboys.
gambitking
March 19, 2008, 09:32 PM
Okay I have to throw in my two cents.  I think of myself as pretty objective, and very critical.  I read these reviews and the comments.  And I have yet to play Brawl, though a copy sits on my desk.  BUT, there's really just one thing I have to say in response to the basis of ZenUser's stance.

Sales figures were posted 3/17 for Brawl.  It's officially the fastest selling game in the history of Nintendo of America.  120 copies per minute on opening day, or a total of 875,000 copies. Were that pace to continue, it would smash Melee's lifetime sales records of 7 million copies within a couple of weeks

Why does that matter?  Well, beyond the obvious merits of a record-breaking milestone, it means that 875,000 people grabbed their copy right when it hit the shelves, and that's a trend that won't slow down too much.  That's a lot of fans.  So many, in fact, that the chances that an excellent Zentendo staff editor might actually be one of them are pretty high.  Brawl naysayers, at least statistically, are in the minority this time.  You can't ignore a following like that. 

The point is, ZentendoUser, this game doesn't need one (or three) talented journalists to appease a burgeoning fandom.  They say what they said because they ARE this fandom.  And the fact of the matter is - right now, 874,997 people probably agree with them.  I only see one person here who doesn't. 

Man i can't wait to play this game!
Gary_Jinfield
March 19, 2008, 09:40 PM
However, it would be unlikely for Brawl to continue at the pace it is going, as most individuals who desired Brawl would have attained it at launch, thus the high sales figures. There has been no news of Brawl shortages, thus it would seem likely that most individuals who desired the game were able to attain it already. (Some even attaining the Japanese version beforehand) That is not say Brawl will drop off completely in sales figures, just that the sales will dwindle quite a bit, although likely not as much as Halo 3.

That said, I could be incorrect, this is just a quick and unfurnished hypothesis after all.
D3stiny_Sm4sher
March 19, 2008, 10:12 PM
When did musical quality require orchestrated music?
I know we don't live in the 80's anymore, but I do NOT recall people complaining about the music back then.
The quality of a piece also has to do with composition, of which there is a lot.

And ZentendoUser, if you really can't see just how much was added to Brawl in comparison to the previous ones, well, sorry, but you probably aren't the Smash fans Nintendo is catering to.
I'm a big Smash fan and I can tell you, Brawl has a lot more content, and almost everything that was "old" is different in some way through use of things like co-op mode.

DK's level feels similar to the Icicle Mountain only in that it scrolls vertically, otherwise the two are completely different. I will agree that Port City is like Mute City, except the layouts that you land on are completely different and the level looks a lot better, obviously.
Seriously, though, you're going to point to one or two things and somehow decide the game doesn't have enough content? I'm sorry, but from a purely objective standpoint, there is simply a LOT of stuff.
And honestly, fans of a series like Smash (or Halo) don't necessarily want or need EVERY SINGLE THING to be new, that's the point of a SEQUEL, isn't it?

So are you going to tell me that Halo 3 is a shitty game, too, because it does exactly what Brawl does? I don't remember SSE being that big a selling point, I never saw it on the commercials or anything. I think that was all hype built by the fanbase, but maybe that's me. Point is, that's your perception. Any person who thinks that Smash's "main selling points" are a single player mode and online clearly doesn't understand what Smash is REALLY about -- playing multiplayer in the same room with your friends.

I admit, online is a big deal, but I couldn't use it due to my current connection.
Furthermore, again, if you're complaining that the online isn't more robust then you're whining feels a little off base to me. Compared ot every other Wii game out there, what holds a candle to this title's online? I',m not syaing it's the best, I don't know, I just can't think of any other title. Sorry, just sounds like whining for the sake of whining.

Mind you, I see your points pretty validly, I just don't see them to be as big as you make them out to be.
Sure, SSE could've been better, but even if it WAS, so what?
You're STILL just gonna play through it once and then likely never play it again. This is a multiplayer game, after all. And since this game SHOULD be compared to its predecessor and other games of its genre and platform, SSE beats the pants off of any single-player campaign in any fighting game I can think of just for being there in the first place (Tekken 5's retarded thing doesn't count since it sucks that bad) and compared to the past Smash Bros. game it's leaps and bounds above the old Adventure mode.

Lordy Lord, stop trying to match this game to its hype, please.
If you're reasonable and objective I would figure you'd be able to set hype aside and stop viewing the game for what you expected but instead as what it IS. Not that you'll like it any more, obviously, I'm just saying -- when you review a game you shouldn't just measure it up to your expectations, you need to view it for what it is, and if you're going to compare it, compare it to others of its genre and platform.

No point in comparing SSBB to Halo 3 critically because the two are completely different genres on completely different platforms and thus have completely different audiences, for example.
D3stiny_Sm4sher
March 19, 2008, 10:14 PM
And I think you're probably right, Gary.
Though Melee DID stay the GCN's best-selling game.
So I don't know, anything could happen. Not EVERYONE who wants this game is gonna biuy it right out.
Half the people I know who want this simply can't afford it right now but are definitely going to buy it when they can.
It's hard to tell with a game like this because it's been so long since the last one, we don't really know for SURE how many people want it that already have it.

Either way, I definitely agree that the same general thing will happen.
Simmaria
March 19, 2008, 10:30 PM
Online play has always worked for me, I'm sorry I don't see why it should be lower because someone else has problems. and I am not disappointed with subspace because I never expected it to be anything it wasn't, minus the scrolling level portions

People like myself are fans of this game because above all else it is fun, the series has risen to the competitive levels inlcuding the EVO tournaments because its fun. Most of the people playing the game dont have warm cuddly memories of R.O.B., Ice Climers, or Pit. Many Nintendo fans are not diehard Metal Gear players, Sonic hasn't exactly had a good console game in probably over a decade. Pikmin was never a huge franchise, but guess what, people still come in droves to this game because it is fun. Its more fun the Mario Kart, Party, Golf, Tennis, Baseball. and hoops all put together. So saying this game is garnering high accolades from all over the game industry simply because it has familiar faces in it is simply absurd.
Aurelius
March 20, 2008, 01:26 AM
Gambitking, that's the worst argument I've ever heard. Halo 3 sold WAY more copies than Brawl did on day one, it was some stupidly high number like 2 million. If Halo 3 kept that pace of selling 2 million a day, it would have sold what, 300 million by now? ZOMG best game evar, it must be!!!

If sales figures were an accurate indicator of quality everyone would be playing WoW and Halo 3. And man that would suck.
ZentendoUser
March 20, 2008, 06:29 AM
"120 copies per minute  on opening day, or a total of 875,000 copies. Were that pace to continue, it would smash Melee's lifetime  sales records of 7 million copies within a couple of weeks."

The thing is, it won't. Most (over)hyped games tend to enjoy strong initial spikes that quickly fizzle out. You can look up Japan's sales figures: 820K in week 1, 250K in week 2, 142K in week 3, 78K in week 4...and now, it's down to something like 40,000 for the most recent week. America's numbers will almost certainly follow a similar trend.

"The point is, ZentendoUser, this game doesn't need one (or three) talented journalists to appease a burgeoning fandom.  They say what they said because they ARE this fandom.  And the fact of the matter is - right now, 874,997 people probably agree with them.  I only see one person here who doesn't."

I'm not claiming that it's necessarily an appeasement score. Quite frankly, I doubt the fanboys would care about another 10/10 at this point. It's about the unprofessional journalism: TSA said that reviews are assigned based on a "request system." I can only think of two reasons a reviewer would want to call dibs on a certain game long before it's out: (1) he's a fanboy who wants to take the honors of awarding it a high score, or (2) he's biased against it and wants the opportunity to slam it. Instead, reviewers should be assigned games randomly based on their genre preferences. This is how Nintendo Power divides up the responsibility.
ZentendoUser
March 20, 2008, 06:45 AM
"Let me pose another question, why would you want someone who does not like a game series or genre to review something within that series or genre?"

And likewise, it doesn't make sense for someone who's fanatical about a game (and already has predetermined opinions about it) to review it (this judging by you and Eddy's numerous blog posts about Brawl before the game was even out). Biases can go both ways.

As I said in my previous post, the best way to assign reviews is randomly by genre preference, not game preference.

My background is actually pretty similar to TSA's. I've been playing Smash games since the original N64 version was released in 1999, and have beaten both 64 and Melee to completion. I certainly don't have any issues with the genre, if that's what you're trying to imply. Like TSA, I didn't let myself catch on to the Brawl hype, and nonetheless, I was left disappointed and unimpressed.
lefthandedlink
March 20, 2008, 09:28 AM
Instead, reviewers should be assigned games randomly based on their genre preferences. This is how Nintendo Power divides up the responsibility.

you think Nintendo Power's editors are good? weren't they the people who gave Mario Sunshine a perfect?
Aurelius
March 20, 2008, 12:26 PM
You're right of course ZentendoUser, but I wouldn't use Nintendo Power as an example of objective journalism....say EGM or IGN. Nintendo Power is kind of obviously biased toward Nintendo... :D

Santuli
March 20, 2008, 02:10 PM
I hate how the people that are biased against hyped games think that if we do like the game we are automatically biased for it. That we let the hype blind us. Like you said, bias can go either way, and it might be you that's being blinded just because you want not be blinded by the hype so much.

For that reason too, I dont think its fair to say NP is obviously bias because they're owned by NOA. For all you know, they're not. Instead of being biased, they could just have some radical viewpoints for some games. They gave Sunshine a 10? They didnt for TP, did they?

This really is quite a retarded argument though, and expected. But anyways...

Yea Aurelius, you've said it before and we answered to it before. If this game didnt have all the characters, it would not be as interesting. BUT THATS THE POINT! This game is fanservice to the ultimate level!! If everything was just generic, Special Moves would be bland, levels would be unrecognizable, music would have to be original one...it would not be the same.

Yea, if you dont know the first thing about Nintendo games, you wont be interested...or you could get it and learn a few things. In the original one I had no f-ing idea who the hell Samus was...now, Metroid is one of my favorite video games franchises thanks to Smash.
You could use that argument for any game. "I dont like WWII games, so I think every WWII game is bad. Its a stupid genre..." Does that mean that the game is bad? Or that it cant be enjoyed by those who dont have a problem with its target audience? No, so its not really an objective way to judge the game.

As for main selling points, the Wii Would Like to Play commercial...I don't recall seeing much, if any, SSE footage in there. Any real Smash fan knows the SSE would not be the biggest part of the game and the ones who bought it did so for the Multiplayer, not the Single Player. That's too obvious. As for first time Smashers, if the SSE is bad, OH WELL...they'll still learn that the game's most fun part is the multiplayer. Oh, and guess what, new Smashers wont have any of these complaints about how its so "similar" to Melee because they never played it (just to point out, these people dont have to be casual gamers or non-Nintendo fan...just people who never played Smash before)
gambitking
March 20, 2008, 08:32 PM
Well I suppose I'd better clarify for the sake of the opposition to my argument. 

I thought I could get away with a relatively concise take on it.  But as far as my sales figures stance... the point I made still stands.  I don't really get why everyone attacked the part about release date sales trends being a model by which to project the accumulated revenue over its lifetime.  I know 120 copies per minute will obviously not last.  That's why, when I made my statement about the fan following, I used the actual number from the first day - 875,000 fans. 

My sentiment regarding the "what-if's" of keeping an astounding pace like 120 copies per minute was only to put some perspective on just how fast of a pace it was. 

So, for those naysayers so copiously digging up the pillars of my point...you're focusing on a tenet that was never designed to support what I'm trying to say - merely to exhibit the impact of the existing hype; clearly not perpetuated by zentendo writers selling out to the  fans.

I agree with you, in fact... - saying that something could break records with the expectation that it consistently kept a blockbuster pace on release date is ridiculous.   

We're on the same page.  Aren't we?

Because my actual argument is that 875,000 copies went to the eager hands of fans on day one.  Our talented reviewers (and admin) are part of that fanbase with opinions of their own - and I don't think its hard, with numbers like that, to believe those opinions will align with 874,997 others. ... plus the continuing sales, whether they decline or not.

Oh and by the way, I got my Wii back and finally got to play Brawl, so now I actually have an opinion of the game.  It's awesome. And that's not just for the fans

Santuli
March 20, 2008, 08:48 PM
Seriously, I just ignored the people that had responded to your post because I knew they hadnt gotten your real point. Those two often do that actually, and its what resulted in that first paragraph of my last post.

This misunderstanding of arguments and picking at the irrelevant pieces of them is really annoying...its just clutching at straws.
Simmaria
March 21, 2008, 02:52 AM
"Let me pose another question, why would you want someone who does not like a game series or genre to review something within that series or genre?"

And likewise, it doesn't make sense for someone who's fanatical about a game (and already has predetermined opinions about it) to review it (this judging by you and Eddy's numerous blog posts about Brawl before the game was even out). Biases can go both ways.

As I said in my previous post, the best way to assign reviews is randomly by genre preference, not game preference.

My background is actually pretty similar to TSA's. I've been playing Smash games since the original N64 version was released in 1999, and have beaten both 64 and Melee to completion. I certainly don't have any issues with the genre, if that's what you're trying to imply. Like TSA, I didn't let myself catch on to the Brawl hype, and nonetheless, I was left disappointed and unimpressed.

Your logic here does not make sense. By your reckoning anybody who ever scored a game highly should not be eligible to review the next game in that series.  So anyone who reviews bioshock and gave it a ten cant review its upcoming sequel because that would be biased? I don't know what made your heart so cold and crusty but I fail to see how its poor journalism to review a game in a series you like and it also meets your expectations. It can happen, its not an impossibility! even if you don't agree. Lets try not to mix up personally disagreeing with a score and poor journalism next time.
Mike Damiani
March 21, 2008, 04:57 PM
ZentendoUser, you are assuming that if you are a fan of X series, then you will give a new game in that X series a higher score than a non-fan. Simply having a fan review a product they are a fan of does not inherently constitute a breach of integrity, and I say that is nonsense.  You also bring up the "hater" stereotype, in which a reviewer would handle a game because they "hate" it and want to give it a bad score.

You do not consider the alternatives, or if you did, you assume they aren't plausible.

A "hater" of a series could play a game and give it a great score, which would probably have a more profound impact on the audience of any of the possible reviewer scenarios.  You could also have a reviewer who is a huge fan of the series, but give the game a lower score, in which some would view that as you're just too "hardcore" of a fan, or too "niche" and unreasonable, or it's a serious indictment against the product - whichever way the reader takes it.

My thing is that I used to personally always felt for a highly intelligent review of a game, huge expertise and long-time experience were needed to review the game.  But now I see that just another type of reviewer - the very hardcore fan who can pick up on stuff in a game the average person wouldn't, which means they will probably have a different experience with the title.

There's also other things to factor in that most people do not account for.  Perhaps the game stumps you when it shouldn't - and quite a bit - or maybe you're having a bad week that's affecting your mood, or whatever.  Point is emotions play into opinions, and as such there are an infinite number of condition that could sway a reviewer one way or the other.

In fact, with a critical review, the only way to be unethical is to be dishonest about your feelings.  If you are lying about how you felt, then it is a breach of integrity and the review becomes something quite different.

There's many ways to approach a review.
lefthandedlink
March 22, 2008, 10:36 AM
Oh yeah, I want to bring one thing in.

About Online.... hey, it's not as good as the other online games from PS3 and Xbox because the Nintendo WiFi Connection is free. At least you aren't paying anything more to play online.

Nintendo's tossed in a lot of things they didn't have to. Hell, they could have just made us pay for online service.

No matter how bad the SSE was, the cutscenes are to die for.
Santuli
March 22, 2008, 10:49 AM
Well, there's gonna be a service where we're gonna have to pay soon, though. Hopefully that service means that the connections are much better. I wouldnt complain if theres an option to change Brawl to that service actually...well, I personally wouldnt care much because I dont have many problems with it, but for others it would help.
Aurelius
March 22, 2008, 11:42 AM
Clay Adams, you're still assuming that everyone who bought the game loved it or even likes it.

Don't. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has bought several games that I ended up strongly disliking, despite researching them well first. Halo 3 is the most notable example, one that half the people I knew bought, and that only one of them actually liked and played for longer than a week.

If immediate sales figures were some measure of the quality of a game, then Halo 3 would have crushed everything else, INCLUDING brawl. But it didn't, it got trounced by COD4, which as a better game is now more popular online, received far more awards and critical acclaim from fan and professional alike. Halo 3 sold more copies initially, but people stopped playing it and switched to COD4 when they realized the latter was a better game.

Citing the high sales figures of a game as some justification for a high score that some find unsuitable is pointless.

And it's such an odd situation here, you have TSA coming out and saying that anyone who gives this over an 8/10 is blinded by fanboyism, and then he has no problem with three editors all giving it 10/10??? Wouldn't he consider them all "fanboys" under his own definition? And of course fanboys are not suited for reviewing the game they love so much, you wouldn't get a halo fanboy to review halo, because he'd tell you it was 10/10 every time, whether it warranted it or not.

Imagine, if you will, that this was an xbox or halo fansite, and they were going to do a review for Halo 3, the biggest entertainment event in history in terms of launch sales.

They play Halo 3, and it's really not that good. A 7/10 or 8/10 game at best.

Which sounds better? To say "jee guys, I know you've been looking forward to Halo 3 for three years now....but it really isn't all that great, guess we'll have to find something else to play."

Or, they can say "halo 3 is t3h best game evar, it will change your life."

Most sites opted for the latter, and who can blame them? The few reviewers who gave Halo 3 a low score that it deserved (I'm a big fan of the series and got the game on launch day, by the way) were relentlessly attacked by halo fanboys.
Santuli
March 22, 2008, 12:05 PM
And you're assuming that everyone who bought Halo has stopped playing. Even today, I hear too much talk about Halo 3 from people. They were actually discussing how little they've been playing it because of all the work my class is getting these days. You're just assuming everyone thinks as clearly as you do...well, there are tons of people who dont really realize if a game is not as good as its predecessor (or if it doesnt offer many new things), or maybe they still find it a blast to play with other people.

I cant imagine this being a fansite of the sort you said, but I can imagine TP's review in a Zelda fansite. TSA did give it an awesome score, but I remember that a few weeks later he wrote another article about it, and how at first glance the game was fantastic, but the series was not moving forwards. Im not sure if his thoughts about TP changed, it was quite some time ago that I read that.

You keep assuming that all fans of anything will always be biased. You do hate fanboys afterall, you've mentioned that before, but really...you shouldnt undermine someone's intelligence or fair judgement because of their fanboyism. In fact, many times this is how some people get extremely disappointed in some games. Fanboys arent always blinded about the flaws...sometimes they see them so clearly that they really overreact when they're disappointed. Well, these fanboys that reviewed the game weren't.

In fact, with a critical review, the only way to be unethical is to be dishonest about your feelings.  If you are lying about how you felt, then it is a breach of integrity and the review becomes something quite different.

I liked these two sentences.
I really would have a hard time believing any of the people that reviewed the game lied about their opinions. And they would know if they lied to themselves about it. If they say they didnt, that should be good enough for everyone. They spoke what they really thought of the game. It doesnt mean everyone agrees with them, nor that most people disagree with them either. If you do, thats fine, but stop trying to discredit people's opinions.
lefthandedlink
March 23, 2008, 02:22 PM
I agree.

A review is a review because it's something the editor likes to do.
Ever hear about that guy who got fired for reviewing a game, said it was bad, because that game was supporting the website he editored for? Well, kudos to that person for not caring about public opinion and writing what HE thought.
Samuel71
March 23, 2008, 03:59 PM
I agree.

A review is a review because it's something the editor likes to do.
Ever hear about that guy who got fired for reviewing a game, said it was bad, because that game was supporting the website he editored for? Well, kudos to that person for not caring about public opinion and writing what HE thought.

You are referring to the Jeff Gerstmann scandal, of course.
Linkkid
March 23, 2008, 10:11 PM
Why would Zentendo please ZentendoUser with a review written by TSA when they could please every other damn member with the review written by the other editors. That's my take on this situation,
Aurelius
March 24, 2008, 01:32 AM
Why would Zentendo please ZentendoUser with a review written by TSA when they could please every other damn member with the review written by the other editors. That's my take on this situation,

Yeah, who cares about getting an objective review, just tell us what we WANT to hear.

We'd rather hear that Brawl is the best game ever than a disappointment, so clearly we SHOULD hear that.

Believe me though , I'm not concerned about it, not my site. Just out of principle that I wrote those posts, I suppose, rather hard to ignore this kind of oddity. (you have the main founder guy of a site saying that anyone who gives a certain score or higher is blinded by fanboyism, and then have all the editors who review said game give it a higher score, with no real comment from the founder guy....apparently thinks all of his editors aren't impartial and doesn't care?)

Most would say "meh, who cares", and that's certainly what I'm saying at this point.
Mike Damiani
March 24, 2008, 03:29 AM
This is why I don't get so worked up.  People don't read what I write, or seriously fail at reading comprehension.  If you can't understand what I say, or piece it all together, then there is very little else I can do.

For the sake of being merciful, I will point out for the last time that my belief is that a review is a personal opinion, and as such, only posting what you really feel is being honest and ethical, that anything else is just being warped to spin your opinion to "suit" somebody, meaning you are compromising and not demonstrating integrity.  

Now, to connect the dots for those who seem to have a reading disability, with the above statement in mind, I said in my blog post that anyone who gives this game above X score is a "fanboy" in my opinion.  However, I also said earlier that just because you are a fanboy does not make you less qualified to review the game.  So either I made a gross assumption about my reviewers, or I was employing an exaggeration.  But beside that last sentence, the point is both my opinion and the others are just as valid, regardless of what their history or association is in terms of a review.

So, there is  no "oddity" in my statement.  It's opinion, not fact.  You can't take it into the context you are Aurelius since it is not fact, nor do I put it forth as a fact, but opinion.  Opinions are neither right nor wrong.

http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2008/03/column_the_aberrant_gamer_auto.php

That article makes a good point about Brawl that I considered when making my judgement - just how good of a score would it get under a different name with non-Nintendo characters?  Just putting that out there.
Santuli
March 24, 2008, 09:07 AM
Why would Zentendo please ZentendoUser with a review written by TSA when they could please every other damn member with the review written by the other editors. That's my take on this situation,

Yeah, who cares about getting an objective review, just tell us what we WANT to hear.

Thats not what he said.


So, there is  no "oddity" in my statement.  It's opinion, not fact.  You can't take it into the context you are Aurelius since it is not fact, nor do I put it forth as a fact, but opinion.  Opinions are neither right nor wrong.


He does that a lot though. I mean taking things out of context.
Midna
March 24, 2008, 12:20 PM
SHUT THE HELL UP AND ENJOY THE DAMN GAME!
Samuel71
March 24, 2008, 06:20 PM
SHUT THE HELL UP AND ENJOY THE DAMN GAME!
But... forced enjoyment is not enjoyment at all!     ;D
sh1n illum1nat3d
March 25, 2008, 07:28 AM
I'm having fun with it.

Like I said at some point before, if you don't like it, don't play it. No ones holding a gun to your head. Convincing those who don't like it to like it and vise versa is just redundant.

People have already chosen their side of the fence, set up their camp. Deal with it and let it go.

Plus you know...IT'S JUST A GAAAAAMMMMEEEE!!!!!

Santuli
March 26, 2008, 05:00 PM
Very true

But it was more about the reviews than the game itself. I see more people that dont like it than ones that do trying to change others' opinions though.
sh1n illum1nat3d
March 26, 2008, 10:52 PM
True. But reviews do not a favorite make.

How many movies get crap reviews and end up making millions in the box office anyway?

And don't tell me its not a comparison, it's very apt.
Ian Brown
March 28, 2008, 03:15 PM
I really would have a hard time believing any of the people that reviewed the game lied about their opinions. And they would know if they lied to themselves about it. If they say they didnt, that should be good enough for everyone. They spoke what they really thought of the game. It doesnt mean everyone agrees with them, nor that most people disagree with them either. If you do, thats fine, but stop trying to discredit people's opinions.

Completely on a different train of thought, as I haven't played SSBB, you can tell if someone's lying in a review as the review feels "disjointed" and doesn't have the right flow. Even the best writers in the world, with the best copy-editors cannot fake a positive emotion for a poor game, and likewise a great game scored down because reads entirely incorrectly as well.

In regards to a fanboy, you'd be surprised as the strength of conviction of these people. I'm a huge Zelda fanboy and come from similar website routes as TSA, and I thought that TP was at best mediocre for a Zelda game. People assume that a fanboy will automatically love a title, this is not the case at all. Their own expectations are far higher than a standard player and will spot the minor problems with the title and blow them out of all proportion.
KeeSomething
April 05, 2008, 03:57 PM
A 10 out of 10? ... I highly disagree.  How can a game where the only new big features that seperate it from its previous installment are half-assed or just plain awful (stage builder, online multiplayer)?

I perfer Melee, anyways.  To me, I feel that the faster action makes it far more fun than Brawl.  I'm not sure how I'd score Brawl, but I don't think I'd give it anything over an 8.  It's enjoyable, but I think Melee is more enjoyable. 
Hylian_Pirate
April 05, 2008, 04:00 PM
A 10 out of 10? ... I highly disagree.  How can a game where the only new big features that seperate it from its previous installment are half-assed or just plain awful (stage builder, online multiplayer)?

I perfer Melee, anyways.  To me, I feel that the faster action makes it far more fun than Brawl.  I'm not sure how I'd score Brawl, but I don't think I'd give it anything over an 8.  It's enjoyable, but I think Melee is more enjoyable. 

Oh well, you can't please everyone. Thanks for not forcing us to agree with you unlike someone else.
KeeSomething
April 05, 2008, 04:11 PM
Oh well, you can't please everyone. Thanks for not forcing us to agree with you unlike someone else.
If someone loves Brawl, I'm not going to try and convert them to think the way I think, but at the same time, I want it explain my reasons for not enjoying Brawl. So, you welcome.  ;)
Santuli
April 07, 2008, 04:13 PM
Oh well, you can't please everyone. Thanks for not forcing us to agree with you unlike someone else.
If someone loves Brawl, I'm not going to try and convert them to think the way I think, but at the same time, I want it explain my reasons for not enjoying Brawl. So, you welcome.  ;)

That's what everyone should do. yet so many have problems dealing with the fact that other do think differently than them =\
Please login or register to post comments.
 
All Content © 2007-2009 Zentendo.
Legal · Staff Openings · Contact Us

Game Rankings metacritic