Games

[icycalm]

Never read the magazine, but it seems to be remembered fondly by many people. I have misgivings about that, since I hear it was founded by Dave Halverson, who is just a rabid fanboy.

At any rate, I came across this website just now:

http://diehardgamefan.com/

which has licensed the name, but is being written by different people.

How funny are all these "Hardcore Gamer" this, "Diehard Gamer" that websites -- while they are always full of random stuff either about character biographies or mainstream sludge non-games. Nothing that anyone would actually care to know about, or when they DO happen to touch an interesting game, they either jizz all over it like braindead fanboys, or fail to understand anything about it and write it off before they've even learned how to play it.

Anyway. I struggled to find a couple of interesting games in that hideous and hideously boring frontpage. What a waste of my motherfucking time.

[keelhaul]

What's hilarious is their icon being an arcade cab, what with their abundance of arcade articles. Hell, they squish it and use it as their favicon and as a bullet point. And the 'Arcade Games' section itself? A Pokemon game and a PC game. lol

Good stuff.

[MjFrancis]

Given that their site is advertised as an alternative to game journalism, it is disheartening to see them miss the mark so much. Where to begin?

They loathe numerical scoring systems, so they replace numbers with words, changing nothing in the process. Then, they rate all games by the same criteria, some of which isn't defined at all; among them being the game's "appeal" and a mysterious category of "miscellaneous." The Milestone Shooting Collection got a "below average" ranking for the story (despite praising it's exceptional storytelling qualities for the genre in the article, lol). Why the fuck are they devoting four paragraphs about the story in an STG? One sentence could have done as well.

Then there was the MadWorld review. Like most other mainstream reviewers, the author was bamboozled by the beautiful graphics. What about the game?

The mechanics are praised up and down, despite being little better than No More Heroes. If you told me that the remnants of Clover Studio made this game, I wouldn't have believed you. How can they go from God Hand - a challenging game with <s>far more complex</s> combos, superior enemies, relatively complex controls, etc - to this? The most complicated move had to be a jumping chainsaw attack. The enemies weren't nearly as cunning as they were in God Hand. Sure, they were slightly smarter than those in No More Heroes, but that isn't anything to brag about.

The hard difficulty mode is locked until you beat the game. Since the bosses only popped the player with love taps throughout the game (and the lives were too numerous), their patterns and attacks have been memorized and the challenge (fun) of running through the game a second time is further diminished. None of the bosses posed a challenge as remotely difficult as the final two bosses in No More Heroes, both of which make more of that game's mechanics than MadWorld ever attempts with it's own.

Note that I didn't even attempt to compare this game to Devil May Cry or Ninja Gaiden.

What do you call the Xboxification of a genre that has already been a staple of consoles?

[icycalm]

Wiification.

[BlackerOmegalon]

While Dave Halverson was indeed in charge of the magazine, it was still better than any magazine out there at the time, as the alternatives were actually pretty horrid (like EGM or Gamepro). While Halverson is somewhat crazy, he always had people who actually knew a thing or two about games and didn't pretend to be journalists (he had actually written an article in the magazine saying that they were fans, not journos), unlike the mainstream gamers at EGM, and he also knew how to run a game magazine that was maintained by it's sales and not advertiser money. He catered to his audience, rather than the advertisers. It's interesting that his current magazine, Play, has outlasted EGM. You could tell Gamefan wasn't clearly influenced by game publishers, as it wasn't filled to the brim with ads. In contrast, EGM rarely had two consecutive ad-free pages. Also, Gamefan had games on the cover that you wouldn't normally see on other magazines, such as Legend of Oasis (The Story of Thor 2) or Armored Core 2 on the cover.

The best thing about Gamefan was that they covered import games extensively. Where else would you find two full pages dedicated to a game like Blazing Tornado? Other magazines couldn't care less about a game if it didn't have a potential advertiser. For this reason, it was the only magazine I could remember at the time not telling everybody how shitty the Saturn was. Additionally, they always had loads of screen shots taken with their custom made capture device. I'll also remember them fondly for things like: being the only magazine to call Working Designs' localizations shit; dedicating an entire editorial to how bad EGM had become; calling out other magazines for calling Strider 2 easy due to unlimited continues; and one time mentioning quotes from one of the "Official" game magazines.

While Gamefan was at times retarded, it was still a lot better than the other major US games magazines of the time.

[keelhaul]

Reminded me I had a few Gamefan mags close to hand. Was just reading their import review of Kaze Kiri. And they sure did love posting screenshots. Every space not occupied by text was a screenshot. ha

How can they go from God Hand - a challenging game with <s>far more complex</s> combos, superior enemies, relatively complex controls, etc - to this?

Just a few days ago, I wrote my own review of God Hand, inspired by the disappointing Madworld and utterly garbage reviews of it and God Hand. I think I'll post it in the review section soon.

Also, as far as those reviews referencing Devil May Cry and Ninja Gaiden, I have no problem with the references themselves, as much as I do with why they use them. They mention numerous games so sparingly, without bothering to make any insightful comments or correlations. It's like reading an essay by a 5th grader who just squeezes by.

[Whipt1]

Given that their site is advertised as an alternative to game journalism, it is disheartening to see them miss the mark so much. Where to begin?

They loathe numerical scoring systems, so they replace numbers with words, changing nothing in the process. Then, they rate all games by the same criteria, some of which isn't defined at all; among them being the game's "appeal" and a mysterious category of "miscellaneous." The Milestone Shooting Collection got a "below average" ranking for the story (despite praising it's exceptional storytelling qualities for the genre in the article, lol). Why the fuck are they devoting four paragraphs about the story in an STG? One sentence could have done as well.

Then there was the MadWorld review. Like most other mainstream reviewers, the author was bamboozled by the beautiful graphics. What about the game?

The mechanics are praised up and down, despite being little better than No More Heroes. If you told me that the remnants of Clover Studio made this game, I wouldn't have believed you. How can they go from God Hand - a challenging game with <s>far more complex</s> combos, superior enemies, relatively complex controls, etc - to this? The most complicated move had to be a jumping chainsaw attack. The enemies weren't nearly as cunning as they were in God Hand. Sure, they were slightly smarter than those in No More Heroes, but that isn't anything to brag about.

The hard difficulty mode is locked until you beat the game. Since the bosses only popped the player with love taps throughout the game (and the lives were too numerous), their patterns and attacks have been memorized and the challenge (fun) of running through the game a second time is further diminished. None of the bosses posed a challenge as remotely difficult as the final two bosses in No More Heroes, both of which make more of that game's mechanics than MadWorld ever attempts with it's own.

Note that I didn't even attempt to compare this game to Devil May Cry or Ninja Gaiden.

What do you call the Xboxification of a genre that has already been a staple of consoles?

Matt from DHGF here.

Yeah, I'm personally not a big fan of any type of scoring system, but it's what all the writers on the site compromised on between those who wanted scores and those who did not.

I thought I went pretty detailed into the mechanics of the game more so than any other review I have so far read. But I was and still am bamboozled by the graphics.

But I do have to disagree about your point that it was little better than No More Heroes. I enjoyed NMH, but the enemy AI was nearly non-existent and there was very little variety between the enemy types. The fighting was mostly jamming the A button then following an onscreen prompt for specific motions. MadWorld is one of the few games I've played where the Wii motion controls are used for basic functions and done in a way that more accurate than just waggling the controller around.

God Hand was released to a different system with a different control scheme. I do not believe the God Hand would be able to work with the Wii Nunchuck and Remote. In fact I don't think any action title that requires specific combo timing will work with the Wii remote/nunchuck. Not enough buttons and the motion control isn't accurate enough or responsive enough for that style of game. Within the limitations of the system, MadWorld does a fantastic job and the mechanics really stand out in the harder difficulty. Then again so do the problems with the camera lock on.

God Hand is still one of the best brawler games ever made. I don't see MadWorld as a step down from that, I see it as a step in a different direction.

I would grudgingly agree with you regarding the bosses. Once you know the pattern they're a cakewalk. However many games require you to first complete a Normal mode before unlocking further difficulties.

I wouldn't compare MadWorld to Devil May Cry and Ninja Gaiden 2. They're significantly different in style and gameplay.

That's probably the best contructive critisms I've ever read for one of my reviews. We may not agree, but you do represent your points strongly.

[Bradford]

God Hand is still one of the best brawler games ever made. I don't see MadWorld as a step down from that, I see it as a step in a different direction.
. . .
I wouldn't compare MadWorld to Devil May Cry and Ninja Gaiden 2. They're significantly different in style and gameplay.

Everything is different from everything else. "It's not better or worse, just different" sounds like a cop-out so people won't get upset that you think it's better or worse. They're all games where you run around and beat up the bad guys; why wouldn't you compare them?

However many games require you to first complete a Normal mode before unlocking further difficulties.

If that is a negative feature, how does the fact that other games also have that negative feature make it better?

[Whipt1]

God Hand is still one of the best brawler games ever made. I don't see MadWorld as a step down from that, I see it as a step in a different direction.
. . .
I wouldn't compare MadWorld to Devil May Cry and Ninja Gaiden 2. They're significantly different in style and gameplay.

Everything is different from everything else. "It's not better or worse, just different" sounds like a cop-out so people won't get upset that you think it's better or worse. They're all games where you run around and beat up the bad guys; why wouldn't you compare them?

However many games require you to first complete a Normal mode before unlocking further difficulties.

If that is a negative feature, how does the fact that other games also have that negative feature make it better?

Again, system limitations would prevent a game like God Hand from appearing on the Wii. MadWorld is not God Hand. You run around and beat up guys in Dynasty Warriors and I would not compare the two. The intent of MadWorld was not to be God Hand 2, the game has a different style and completely different combat system. The only similarity between the two is that they're over the top brawling games where you backflip to dodge.

Complaining that this game isn't God Hand when it was never meant to be is pointless. I might as well compare it to Double Dragon. Reviews are meant to be informative, making constant references to other games that the audience might not have played would not be effective (and considering God Hand's sales, not many people are even aware of the game).

Whether unlockable difficulty levels are a negative feature is opinion. Other game throughout the history of video games have had the feature which leads me to assume that is because it's a feature consumers want in a video game.

[Worm]

Reviews are meant to be informative, making constant references to other games that the audience might not have played would not be effective (and considering God Hand's sales, not many people are even aware of the game).

Encyclopedias are meant to inform. Reviews are meant to critique, and you can't make judgments without comparison. Your claim is especially hilarious considering the scoring terms used on the site: "classic," "mediocre," "above average," etc.

And, maybe no one knows about God Hand because reviewers keep trying to praise games "on their own merits" instead of pointing out that they're a step backwards for the genre. I mean, I don't know why you're bothering to hedge your comments; it just makes people go through a distillation process to pull them out of the review:

"MadWorld has a unique look but lacks challenge or depth. I guess the motion controls are better than directionless waggle. If you want a decent 3D brawler, go play God Hand or something. Oh, and don't buy a Wii, because the control limitations mean MadWorld is about as good as it gets."

Just come out and say it, man.

[A.Wrench]

Whether unlockable difficulty levels are a negative feature is opinion. Other game throughout the history of video games have had the feature which leads me to assume that is because it's a feature consumers want in a video game.

Though it's done so often I really don't see the point of unlockable difficulty levels. If a player has the balls to pick up a game and play on the hardest difficulty before he tries normal mode, he should be able to. There's no reason why he should have to slog through a boring easy game to gain the privilege to play the game at a challenge level he feels is appropriate.

I understand if it's an extreme alternate game mode like Heaven or Hell or Dante Must Die of DMC3, but the developers think far too highly of their game if they believe it's worth playing through over and over on increasingly hard difficulties. There aren't that many games I'd do that for, and even less of them contain the "feature" of making Hard Mode an unlock.

So, I really don't think it's a matter of opinion.

[Whipt1]

Reviews are meant to be informative, making constant references to other games that the audience might not have played would not be effective (and considering God Hand's sales, not many people are even aware of the game).

Encyclopedias are meant to inform. Reviews are meant to critique, and you can't make judgments without comparison. Your claim is especially hilarious considering the scoring terms used on the site: "classic," "mediocre," "above average," etc.

And, maybe no one knows about God Hand because reviewers keep trying to praise games "on their own merits" instead of pointing out that they're a step backwards for the genre. I mean, I don't know why you're bothering to hedge your comments; it just makes people go through a distillation process to pull them out of the review:

"MadWorld has a unique look but lacks challenge or depth. I guess the motion controls are better than directionless waggle. If you want a decent 3D brawler, go play God Hand or something. Oh, and don't buy a Wii, because the control limitations mean MadWorld is about as good as it gets."

Just come out and say it, man.

Except I said in the second paragraph of my MadWorld review that God Hand is one of the best brawlers out there.

So you're of the opinion that a game can't be reviewed on what works and what doesn't unless it's compared to similar games? Do I need to compare MadWorld to something else to say the camera lock-on system is flawed and that the motion controls work well?

You are obviously distilling my comments from here rather than from my review. Every review we do is summarized at the bottom for those who want something quick and dirty instead of reading further about the game. There's no need to distill. In my summary: "MadWorld is one of the few truly unique experiences on the Wii console. It has an amazing art style and a control scheme that feels natural after a few minutes. Aside from some camera issues and areas of the game that feel repetitive, this is easily one of my favorite games so far this year"

How is that not clear?

God Hand is great. MadWorld is great. They're two completely different experiences, with the only common ground being that you beat up enemies. I love them both. But I was writing about MadWorld, not God Hand. DHGF also has a review for God Hand.

[Whipt1]

Whether unlockable difficulty levels are a negative feature is opinion. Other game throughout the history of video games have had the feature which leads me to assume that is because it's a feature consumers want in a video game.

Though it's done so often I really don't see the point of unlockable difficulty levels. If a player has the balls to pick up a game and play on the hardest difficulty before he tries normal mode, he should be able to. There's no reason why he should have to slog through a boring easy game to gain the privilege to play the game at a challenge level he feels is appropriate.

I understand if it's an extreme alternate game mode like Heaven or Hell or Dante Must Die of DMC3, but the developers think far too highly of their game if they believe it's worth playing through over and over on increasingly hard difficulties. There aren't that many games I'd do that for, and even less of them contain the "feature" of making Hard Mode an unlock.

So, I really don't think it's a matter of opinion.

If people didn't want that feature they'd not continue to buy games that have that feature or provide enough feedback to developers that this gets changed. I've read forum posts by people who actually think this helps extend the game and so are happy with it.

I don't get it personally.

[Worm]

They're two completely different experiences, with the only common ground being that you beat up enemies.

Yeah, because it's not like in both games you wander around 3D stages in a third-person perspective fighting groups of enemies with a set of melee attacks. Oh wait.

What exactly do you think makes it a different "experience?" The graphics? The minigames? The voice-overs? I don't see how anyone can say these games are not in the same genre, or subgenre for that matter.

I read your review. I'm aware that you mentioned God Hand, but that's not enough. Think about why someone would be interested in playing MadWorld. Is it because the game looks cool and has lots of violence? Well, they don't need a review for that; Wikipedia and some screenshots should suffice. Is it because they want to play a 3D beat-'em-up with a great fighting system? That's where the comparisons--and decent criticism--start. Reviewers need to stop treating the reader as if he has nothing but that week's latest releases to choose from.

[Whipt1]

They're two completely different experiences, with the only common ground being that you beat up enemies.

Yeah, because it's not like in both games you wander around 3D stages in a third-person perspective fighting groups of enemies with a set of melee attacks. Oh wait.

What exactly do you think makes it a different "experience?" The graphics? The minigames? The voice-overs? I don't see how anyone can say these games are not in the same genre, or subgenre for that matter.

I read your review. I'm aware that you mentioned God Hand, but that's not enough. Think about why someone would be interested in playing MadWorld. Is it because the game looks cool and has lots of violence? Well, they don't need a review for that; Wikipedia and some screenshots should suffice. Is it because they want to play a 3D beat-'em-up with a great fighting system? That's where the comparisons--and decent criticism--start. Reviewers need to stop treating the reader as if he has nothing but that week's latest releases to choose from.

You noticed I also didn't mention Crime Life, Final Fight, Yakuza, Beatdown, Urban Reign, etc. People came for information about the game. If I was doing a column about the state of brawling games that would be a different story.

Different experience as in a different battle system, motion control, the fact that the game is score based, God Hand was more about customizable combos, the difficulty systems are vastly different, etc. Yakuza 2 came out recently and even though that's a game where you wander around in a 3D world punching and kicking enemies I didn't compare it to that game either, even though I love the Yakuza series.

People are reading for information about MadWorld. Using references to compare the game to God Hand or Yakuza or anything else would be useless for the people who are interested only in information about MadWorld. If I am talking about a game in a series I will compare it to previous titles, or if it's so similar to another game that it is unavoidable (Saint's Row 2/GTAIV).

It's the difference between subjective and objective.

[Bradford]

So you're of the opinion that a game can't be reviewed on what works and what doesn't unless it's compared to similar games? Do I need to compare MadWorld to something else to say the camera lock-on system is flawed and that the motion controls work well?

Let's start over.

A review necessarily contains one or more judgments. All judgments are inherently comparisons, because all judgments are a statement of opinion regarding the subject's position on a spectrum of possibilities. If that is unclear, use complexity as an example. How complex is Madworld? A little? A lot? You can't say exactly because there is no unit by which you can measure it; complexity is not quanitifiable.

Unless... you compare it to something else. Do you want to review Madworld in a games vacuum? Then if you want to make a statement about how complex it is, you are at least comparing its complexity to your personal capacity to imagine more or less complexity. But that's pretty useless to anyone who isn't sharing your brain with you, so yeah, we'd all prefer if you'd just compare it to other games.

God Hand is great. MadWorld is great. They're two completely different experiences, with the only common ground being that you beat up enemies. I love them both. But I was writing about MadWorld, not God Hand. DHGF also has a review for God Hand.

In other news, yesterday some kid punched me in the sack. Later I found out I won the lottery. I would love to tell everyone which of these two events I enjoyed more, so that I could recommend one, both, or neither to my readers, but unfortunately I am incapable of comparing them because they were completely different experiences.

[Bradford]

People are reading for information about MadWorld. Using references to compare the game to God Hand or Yakuza or anything else would be useless for the people who are interested only in information about MadWorld.

"Information" is pretty vague. Do you think they're reading to get facts about Madworld (because Wikipedia has at least as many as your review), or to get your opinion (aka, your judgments) about Madworld? If it's the former, I don't see how your 'review' is anything but a waste of time in light of the continuing existence of Wikipedia. If it's the latter, we're right back to my previous post about judgments and comparisons with respect to their usefulness.

[Whipt1]

People are reading for information about MadWorld. Using references to compare the game to God Hand or Yakuza or anything else would be useless for the people who are interested only in information about MadWorld.

"Information" is pretty vague. Do you think they're reading to get facts about Madworld (because Wikipedia has at least as many as your review), or to get your opinion (aka, your judgments) about Madworld? If it's the former, I don't see how your 'review' is anything but a waste of time in light of the continuing existence of Wikipedia. If it's the latter, we're right back to my previous post about judgments and comparisons with respect to their usefulness.

This is like running into a brick wall over and over again.

They're reading for BOTH. I wrote information about MadWorld, and gave my opinion that is was one of the games I was enjoying the most so far this year.

In other news, yesterday some kid punched me in the sack. Later I found out I won the lottery. I would love to tell everyone which of these two events I enjoyed more, so that I could recommend one, both, or neither to my readers, but unfortunately I am incapable of comparing them because they were completely different experiences.

That just means you're a bad writer. You can't explain that getting kicked in the nuts causes pain without being able to compare it to a different experience? That sounds like a personal issue.

Again, subjective vs objective. You prefer reviews that reference many other games, even if you might not be familiar with them? Great. I don't because I'd rather take the information and opinions from a review and compare it to my own experiences instead of rely on the external experience of the reviewer that I'm not familiar with.

I could've said it was like God Hand, except the setting is like Manhunt and Smash TV, and the combat uses motion controls instead of custom combinations, and it's over the top in the style of No More Heroes. But that's lazy. I described how it plays and what works and what I didn't think worked about it and gave my opinion.

I'll be reviewing The Dishwasher next, and will reference Ninja Gaiden, so that oughta please you :)

[keelhaul]

You don't get it. The point is not the fact of comparing games, but providing insightful, intelligent comments and correlations between them. Of course there are aspects you can critique without comparison, but it is in comparison that we may better find whether a game propels the genre or is simple a step back in horribly implemented mechanics, catering to simplicity, etc. Look at how comparisons work: Compared to God Hand, Madworld is a shallow 3D action game of little challenge, relying on a whole playthrough to unlock a questionably more difficult version of the game. Compared to Golden Axe, Madworld is stylish 3D evolution of the action genre in it's depth of controls. Do you realize the importance of the reviewer's role to have an expert knowledge to compare games of the action genre. Instead, you make Madworld out to be another island of a game, seperate from all others. What does this accomplish? The only reason I could think of you doing this is that you cater to all forms of gamers, especially to the lowliest kid cutting his teeth on Wii's mini-game collections. In fact, in your review, you make mention of exactly what makes Madworld a less than stellar addition to the genre, yet you make no attempt in putting attention in the game's faults, instead telling us factoids of the game or how great and brutal it is, somehow in spite of its repetition and shallow mechanics. This is the conceit of the fun gauger. You are never clear, instead giving us generalities in your review and here with your comments.

Whether unlockable difficulty levels are a negative feature is opinion. Other game throughout the history of video games have had the feature which leads me to assume that is because it's a feature consumers want in a video game.

If people didn't want that feature they'd not continue to buy games that have that feature or provide enough feedback to developers that this gets changed. I've read forum posts by people who actually think this helps extend the game and so are happy with it.

This is completely hilarious. First of all, of course it's an opinion. Reviews ARE opinion. Stop clinging to the illusion of objectivity and universal acceptance. What is YOUR opinion of the game? Well, your opinion is that people keep buying games with it and it's been done throughout history, so it must be fine. Great. If people want to keep playing the same damn game over and over, more power to them. I couldn't give a shit about them. I care about games without fat.


Also, please read the posting guidelines of this forum and edit accordingly. Your replies don't have to quote their entire post when you're posting right underneath them. It's fucking ugly and giving me a headache.

[Whipt1]

Yeah, like saying it's shallow compared to God Hand but that compared to Golden Axe it is a stylish evolution of the genre is really clear. Is it evolution or a step back? Make up your mind.

I didn't think repitition was a problem, so I didn't focus on it. Repitition has always been part of the brawler sub-genre, including God Hand.

I also reviewed M&M Beach Party. I didn't need to compare it to any other game to say it was a piece of unresponsive shit.

I'm not clinging to objectivity, I also never said I was doing anything other than providing information about a game while also providing my opinion on it. IE, a game review. I haven't said otherwise. You misquote one part which was a response to someone who said unlockable difficulty being annoying wasn't opinion. I said it was.

Using subjective measures to give opinion is not the mark of an expert. It's a mark of someone who wants to sound like an expert while making their opinion only available to someone who understands what the hell they're talking about.

[Worm]

I see where the confusion is now. You're misunderstanding the idea of expert comparison. The point is not to name-drop obscure games for the purpose of description, nor to give a side-by-side look at the relative strengths and weaknesses of two games. What you are doing is comparing the quality of any given element with the best example the genre has to offer--something only an expert knows.

Take your complaint about the camera, for example. Although it may seem like you're judging it on its own merits, you're really basing that complaint on the fact that other games have done it better. You may not even need specific examples--you can simply imagine how it could be better--but it's still a comparison.

Similarly, I don't need to mention specific games to say that MadWorld's fighting system is shallow, but I am implicitly judging it against superior systems when I condemn it.

So yeah. Forget the whole "obscure references" angle; my complaint was that if you do name-drop something like God Hand in your review--as you did--at least have the courtesy to point the reader away from MadWorld and in that direction.

[Whipt1]

I was hoping that by saying it was one of the best brawlers ot there right in the beginning would be enough. Plus I try to drop God Hand or Yakuza around mostly because I'm sad they sold so poorly.

Does anyone even sell God Hand anymore?

I was also basing the complaint onthe camera not on the fact that it's been done better (I mean it wasn't very good in God Hand) but because it didn't focus on the area I wanted it to and there was no quick way adjust it.

But I get your point.

In the future if I do name drop a different game that people might find more enjoyable, I'll even throw in a link to where they can buy it :D

[MjFrancis]

First of all, thanks for your reply, Matt. While it sounds like I hated MadWorld with a passion, I actually enjoyed it. A mediocre game can still be fun to play!

I thought I went pretty detailed into the mechanics of the game more so than any other review

The most detailed explanation of the mechanics I have read as well. I simply judged the mechanics more harshly that you did, coming to a different conclusion.

I enjoyed NMH, but the enemy AI was nearly non-existent and there was very little variety between the enemy types.

Normal enemy AI was shitty in No More Heroes, and enemy AI in MadWorld was noticeably better but still lacking compared to many other quality action games. Unfortunately the bosses were far worse in MW than NMH. Fighting the number one was a blast in NMH, more fun than the rest of the game put together - I think it took me an hour to beat her, while the rest of the game flew by with no challenge. We agree more or less, I just relied on boss fights more heavily for my judgments.

I don't think any action title that requires specific combo timing will work with the Wii remote/nunchuck

Criticism of MadWorld could be summed up right here. Ultimately, the Wii's control scheme limits the maximum potential of complexity this game could have ever had. Sadly, the developers didn't meet the limits of this control scheme.

MadWorld is one of the best Wii games released that wasn’t published by Nintendo itself.

With this quote in your review, you compare MadWorld to just about every other Wii game. Judgments are necessarily comparative, let alone reviews. Worm just explained this in great detail. The first commenter of your review wanted to make a comparison to No More Heroes. In the genre of action games, Madworld must be compared to it's peers for any opinion to make sense. <i>Why limit your comparisons based on hardware?</i>

If I went out and wrote a review of MadWorld, it would probably contain much of the mechanics-detail you described. I would even praise it more highly in places than you may have - we really can't say enough about the developers pulling off a mostly monochrome visual style successfully. Listening to John DiMaggio and Greg Proops kept me laughing the whole time. It is easily the most hilarious game I have played in years.

I would still give the game two stars out of five.

[icycalm]

Whipt1, first things first: I do not appreciate people dumping in my forum, so you have 24 hours to clean up your posts as per the forum rules.

Moving on,

Yeah, I'm personally not a big fan of any type of scoring system, but it's what all the writers on the site compromised on between those who wanted scores and those who did not.

It is a stupid compromise, and moreover, and more importantly, it's not a compromise, because you still have scores!

I thought I went pretty detailed into the mechanics of the game more so than any other review I have so far read.

But that's not exactly saying much now is it?

God Hand was released to a different system with a different control scheme.

Which is the whole point.

I do not believe the God Hand would be able to work with the Wii Nunchuck and Remote.

See? You can, after all, provide decent criticism if you really go for it.

In fact I don't think any action title that requires specific combo timing will work with the Wii remote/nunchuck. Not enough buttons and the motion control isn't accurate enough or responsive enough for that style of game.

More decent criticism. Too bad it's in my forum and not in your review!

Within the limitations of the system, MadWorld does a fantastic job

"Limitations of the system", lol. I guess you still haven't got the memo about being able to hook up a GC controller on your Wii.

God Hand is still one of the best brawler games ever made. I don't see MadWorld as a step down from that, I see it as a step in a different direction.

Yes, a direction which, according to MjFrancis, is a crappy one.

However many games require you to first complete a Normal mode before unlocking further difficulties.

Worm covered this, but it's worth repeating: just because some games do something badly, that's not a license to other games to copy that.

I wouldn't compare MadWorld to Devil May Cry and Ninja Gaiden 2.

Which is why you write for Diehard GameFAN.

They're significantly different in style and gameplay.

I am sure that's how it looks like -- from retard-land.

Again, system limitations would prevent a game like God Hand from appearing on the Wii.

"System limitations", lol. I guess in retard-land they think that the PS2 is more powerful than the Wii, and, again, they haven't yet figured out that you can plug your GC controller in it.

MadWorld is not God Hand. You run around and beat up guys in Dynasty Warriors and I would not compare the two.

Which, again, is why your write for the site you write for.

The intent of MadWorld was not to be God Hand 2,

It's really great we have guys like you who can tell us what the intent of each game is. NEVER MIND THAT THE INTENT IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO CRITICISM -- it's still good to have people with psychic powers around. Makes me feel safe, you know.

The only similarity between the two is that they're brawling games

Yeah, a very minor similarity. Now I can see why you ignored it! Great thinking there, dude!

Reviews are meant to be informative, making constant references to other games that the audience might not have played would not be effective

Read this, retard:

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/casual_re ... or_no_one/

(and considering God Hand's sales, not many people are even aware of the game).

Which works great for you, since not many people will be able to tell how shallow is your pathetic attempt at criticism!

Whether unlockable difficulty levels are a negative feature is opinion. Other game throughout the history of video games have had the feature which leads me to assume that is because it's a feature consumers want in a video game.

Great thought process there, buddy. Whatever consumers want has to be positive. Does your mother have more kids like you?

So you're of the opinion that a game can't be reviewed on what works and what doesn't unless it's compared to similar games?

"Opinion", lol. I am of the opinion that the sun rises in the East.

God Hand is great. MadWorld is great. They're two completely different experiences

If you have the critical powers of a gnat perhaps it might seem that way.

DHGF also has a review for God Hand.

Do they compare Mad World to God Hand there, lol.

If people didn't want that feature they'd not continue to buy games that have that feature or provide enough feedback to developers that this gets changed. I've read forum posts by people who actually think this helps extend the game and so are happy with it.

I don't get it personally.

lol, yeah, dude, this is quite clear by now.

You noticed I also didn't mention Crime Life, Final Fight, Yakuza, Beatdown, Urban Reign, etc.

Which, again, is why you write for the site you write for.

People came for information about the game.

Perhaps the dingbats who read your site did. But the people posting in this thread who read your review did not. They came for criticism.

Yakuza 2 came out recently and even though that's a game where you wander around in a 3D world punching and kicking enemies I didn't compare it to that game either

Which, again, is why you write for the site you write for.

Using references to compare the game to God Hand or Yakuza or anything else would be useless for the people who are interested only in information about MadWorld.

No one is interested only in information about Mad World, not even the people who say that that's all they are interested in.

If I am talking about a game in a series I will compare it to previous titles, or if it's so similar to another game that it is unavoidable

It is ALWAYS unavoidable. However, dingbat critics like you have become very good at avoiding the unavoidable. It's practically an artform these days.

It's the difference between subjective and objective.

AS IF YOU HAD ANY IDEA OF WHAT THESE WORDS EVEN MEAN!

I wrote information about MadWorld, and gave my opinion that is was one of the games I was enjoying the most so far this year.

Which, given the fact that your knowledge of the genre is rudimentary, and your powers of critical thought and judgement practically non-existent, IS NOT EXACTLY SAYING MUCH.

That just means you're a bad writer.

How does that go? Pot, kettle, etc.

You prefer reviews that reference many other games, even if you might not be familiar with them? Great. I don't because

because you are an uneducated, uncouth dingbat, yes, we've figured that out by now.

I don't because I'd rather take the information and opinions from a review and compare it to my own experiences instead of rely on the external experience of the reviewer that I'm not familiar with.

Translation: I hate criticism.

I could've said it was like God Hand, except the setting is like Manhunt and Smash TV, and the combat uses motion controls instead of custom combinations, and it's over the top in the style of No More Heroes. But that's lazy.

From what I know about all these games, I'd say that would not be a bad way to put it. That paragraph is more interesting and valuable to me than your entire review. You call that "lazy"? I call that smart. Which again leads us back to the fact that you write for the site you write for, and I write for the site I write for.


IN CONCLUSION:

You understand as much about criticism as my dog understands about quantum mechanics. That is lamentable, but it is not our problem. This is a site, and a forum, for people who ALREADY understand AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT about what criticism is. So I will have to ask you to stop posting on this subject until you've figured this one out. Go back to high school if necessary, or take remedial evening classes -- whatever you do, please stop filling my forum with your headache-inducing inanity. Thanks!

[icycalm]

Please, everyone, do me a favor and stop posting in this thread. There is nothing to discuss here. The only reason I am leaving it open is so that the dude can clean up his quote-dumps, otherwise I would have locked it.