Comments on: WaveBird & WaLuigi Stadium http://www.monkeyfood.com/blog/2003/12/03/wavebird-waluigi-stadium/ Food for Monkeys Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:43:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: tom http://www.monkeyfood.com/blog/2003/12/03/wavebird-waluigi-stadium/comment-page-1/#comment-27 tom Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.monkeyfood.com/blog/?p=56#comment-27 I have to say I thought the edge score was pretty ridiculous, I've been glued to the game since wednesday last week and though the power up balance is flawed and the graphics aren't exactly revolutionary there's really nothing average about the game. The course design is more robust than MK64, I've yet to find anywhere you can really fuck someone up by making them fall on to earlier section of track and we finally get non cheating computer players. This last point is what probablyled to the greater reliance on powerups; If you introduce a more random element pure driving skill is a diminished factor and the enemy driving skill in this game mostly sucks. but come on, Edge gave that mosquito game 7 out of 10 a couple of months ago and Freakout got a 7 last year both were imaginative games but I never played them for more than a couple of days before getting bored, the feeling of solidity and quality just wasn't there. Genrally I'd defend Edge against a lot of the crticism they get, i mean reviews are a matter of opinion, but their review scores have become more eratic since the departure of Tony Mott a couple of years ago (with relation to my opinion i.e. I can't say "well they allways like this kind of game less than I would so I'll get it even though it only got a 6" etc.). All I want is consistency, at least give us the reviewers name so we can get some idea of who's reviews we trust and who we generally dissagree with. I'd really like to see them ditch the numbers in favour of writing well argued reviews. After all you don't read book reviews and expect a number at the end, why should all games be placed on a 1d scale? rant over I have to say I thought the edge score was pretty ridiculous, I’ve been glued to the game since wednesday last week and though the power up balance is flawed and the graphics aren’t exactly revolutionary there’s really nothing average about the game. The course design is more robust than MK64, I’ve yet to find anywhere you can really fuck someone up by making them fall on to earlier section of track and we finally get non cheating computer players. This last point is what probablyled to the greater reliance on powerups; If you introduce a more random element pure driving skill is a diminished factor and the enemy driving skill in this game mostly sucks. but come on, Edge gave that mosquito game 7 out of 10 a couple of months ago and Freakout got a 7 last year both were imaginative games but I never played them for more than a couple of days before getting bored, the feeling of solidity and quality just wasn’t there.

Genrally I’d defend Edge against a lot of the crticism they get, i mean reviews are a matter of opinion, but their review scores have become more eratic since the departure of Tony Mott a couple of years ago (with relation to my opinion i.e. I can’t say “well they allways like this kind of game less than I would so I’ll get it even though it only got a 6″ etc.).

All I want is consistency, at least give us the reviewers name so we can get some idea of who’s reviews we trust and who we generally dissagree with. I’d really like to see them ditch the numbers in favour of writing well argued reviews. After all you don’t read book reviews and expect a number at the end, why should all games be placed on a 1d scale?

rant over

]]> By: zachary towey http://www.monkeyfood.com/blog/2003/12/03/wavebird-waluigi-stadium/comment-page-1/#comment-28 zachary towey Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.monkeyfood.com/blog/?p=56#comment-28 ╒4o"♀"78○╚╒╚8a4{╚╥4╒╚78○╚╒╚oàτ4o6548àü╚1324§-87 ╒4o”♀”78○╚╒╚8a4{╚╥4╒╚78○╚╒╚oàτ4o6548àü╚1324§-87

]]>