NSMBU confirmed to be bad

#41lanifPosted 11/5/2012 9:01:27 AM
the snes is amazing still play it to this day and have started collecting japanese games for it on the cheap
#42TrueBlue91Posted 11/5/2012 9:04:51 AM
LHS_2012 posted...
TrueBlue91 posted...
jjg737 posted...
Steve__Burnside posted...
*facepalm

8.2 generally means great. Anything below 5 is considered bad. 5 - 7 is mediocre or average


8.2 means good,9.0+ means great.

No, 7 is good, 8 is great, 9+ is amazing. Most reviewers don't use the full 1-10 scale though - a 5/10 game is treated like a 2/10 game should be, when it is merely below average (average being 6)


Average is definitely 7. Most reviewers score like a professor would grade a paper, with 9+ being excellent, 8+ being above average, 7+ being average, 6+ being below average and 5 or below being failing. Reviewers don't use the full ten point scale because games usually aren't that awful.


/ / / / / / / / / /
--------^
7 is here.

It's too high to be merely average imo. And 5 and below seems redundant on the scale. I know games 'usually aren't that awful', but that logic should maybe apply up to 3 on the scale, not HALF the freaking scale.
---
Pour grammer annoy's me
#43LHS_2012Posted 11/5/2012 9:07:23 AM
darkqueenhelba posted...
LHS_2012 posted...
TrueBlue91 posted...
jjg737 posted...
Steve__Burnside posted...
*facepalm

8.2 generally means great. Anything below 5 is considered bad. 5 - 7 is mediocre or average


8.2 means good,9.0+ means great.

No, 7 is good, 8 is great, 9+ is amazing. Most reviewers don't use the full 1-10 scale though - a 5/10 game is treated like a 2/10 game should be, when it is merely below average (average being 6)


Average is definitely 7. Most reviewers score like a professor would grade a paper, with 9+ being excellent, 8+ being above average, 7+ being average, 6+ being below average and 5 or below being failing. Reviewers don't use the full ten point scale because games usually aren't that awful.


Which makes it foolish to use a scaling system like that. If you're not going to utilize the entire system then you're using something completely inefficient. There's no reason to have over 50% of your own methods be useless.


It isn't useless. 1 and 2 out of 10 games exist, and they're notably worse than 5/10 games. They're just extremely uncommon because either
a. It takes a lot for a game to be that bad or
b. Most reviewers only review shovelware as a joke

I think it's counter-intuitive to curve review scores lower simply to use the full scale. Reviews are meant to be used as a reference for how good the game is, not necessarily how they compare to the best. Take Duke Nukem forever: off the top of my head it's averaging around a 5/10, but should it be a 2/10 simply because it's one of the lower rated releases of last year? I don't think so, because even though it's a bad game it has enough redeeming qualities that should get some recognition.
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_N_WTiMga4
#44cavebear56Posted 11/5/2012 9:07:57 AM
*looks at AC3*

Ouch 85?!

Must be a horrible game, so bad that it causes head trauma at how aweful it is.

If it can't even hit 97 it's absolute garbage.
---
If history is to change, let it change. If the world is to be destroyed, so be it. If my fate is to die, I must simply laugh.
#45Beatperson14Posted 11/5/2012 9:09:28 AM
cavebear56 posted...
*looks at AC3*

Ouch 85?!

Must be a horrible game, so bad that it causes head trauma at how aweful it is.

If it can't even hit 97 it's absolute garbage.


It -is- a bad game, 'awful' even
---
MODS=FAQS
#46AXKSIONPosted 11/5/2012 9:11:50 AM
cavebear56 posted...
*looks at AC3*

Ouch 85?!

Must be a horrible game, so bad that it causes head trauma at how aweful it is.

If it can't even hit 97 it's absolute garbage.

Well, to be fair, the Ass series sure is s****y garbage.
---
The song is called "Baba O' Riley", NOT "Teenage Wasteland".
http://imgon.net/di-CFMD.gif
#47pikachupwnagePosted 11/5/2012 9:11:51 AM
JonnyBigBoss posted...
Does anyone not realize that no console has ever released with a true AAA title? It takes years to finally see high quality games with 90+ scores.


N64 had super mario 64.
---
"Let's get comfortable in these nice comfy chairs."
Official electric boogaloo mint scoop with a cherry on top of the IDF
#48LHS_2012Posted 11/5/2012 9:12:30 AM
TrueBlue91 posted...
LHS_2012 posted...
TrueBlue91 posted...
jjg737 posted...
Steve__Burnside posted...
*facepalm

8.2 generally means great. Anything below 5 is considered bad. 5 - 7 is mediocre or average


8.2 means good,9.0+ means great.

No, 7 is good, 8 is great, 9+ is amazing. Most reviewers don't use the full 1-10 scale though - a 5/10 game is treated like a 2/10 game should be, when it is merely below average (average being 6)


Average is definitely 7. Most reviewers score like a professor would grade a paper, with 9+ being excellent, 8+ being above average, 7+ being average, 6+ being below average and 5 or below being failing. Reviewers don't use the full ten point scale because games usually aren't that awful.


/ / / / / / / / / /
--------^
7 is here.

It's too high to be merely average imo. And 5 and below seems redundant on the scale. I know games 'usually aren't that awful', but that logic should maybe apply up to 3 on the scale, not HALF the freaking scale.


It's average because it's meant to be the most recurring score. Look at it this way:
If you have ten games, each scoring somewhere between 1-10 with none having the same score as another, then yea 7 is above average. But let's say you have 10 games and 5 of them are 7s, 2 are 8s, 1 is 9, and the last two are 4s, the average is 6.8. There isn't an even distribution of scores in real life, so the average wouldn't be in the middle.
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_N_WTiMga4
#49pikachupwnagePosted 11/5/2012 9:12:46 AM
AXKSION posted...
Well, it isn't called New Super Casual Rehashed Bros for nothing.


Trololol
---
"Let's get comfortable in these nice comfy chairs."
Official electric boogaloo mint scoop with a cherry on top of the IDF
#50cavebear56Posted 11/5/2012 9:18:19 AM(edited)
Beatperson14 posted...
It -is- a bad game, 'awful' even


Really? Bit disappointing to hear as I liked the concept and idea of it.

I played 2 and was bored to tears with it...plus that Indiana Jones like story.

Love it if someone made a Revolutionary War horror game on a completely unrelated note.

AXKSION posted...
Well, to be fair, the Ass series sure is s****y garbage.


Something we agree on.

Edit: though my post was more or less a jab that if something isn't almost a perfect game widely accepted, then it must be trash, rather than actually looking at the game (over a completely arbitrary number).
---
If history is to change, let it change. If the world is to be destroyed, so be it. If my fate is to die, I must simply laugh.