Support NeoGAF

[GDJustin]

I'm preparing to review it for GameDaily/GamerFeed, and I think it's looking at a 3.5 out of 5 right now. I really enjoy it, and I can't really find any flaws of any kind, but for some reason... I'm not compelled to give it a higher score.

It's weird. I almost feel like the problem is with ME more than the game. Like I said, I dunno what the heck I'm gonna say for the negatives yet, and yet I feel like anything higher than a 3.5 would be too generous. I'm the guy at the site that likes all those puzzle-type games too. Lemmings, Advance Wars, Disgaea, Culdcept...

The overall theme of the review is that the title is a great mixture of platforming and puzzle solving, just like the GameBoy DK, and gets PLENTY difficult later on, despite the ease of the first four worlds.

What do you guys think?

 

[BuddyC]

I just don't feel like going back. I dunno.

 

[fugimax]

3.5 is being a little harsh.

It's a great game that makes for some great fun if you pace yourself. A few levels a day...game should last at least a month.

4.0-4.5 would be fair (80-90%...I say 90).

 

[Dan]

Mario vs Donkey Kong rocks, that's all there is to say. I blasted through the first 6 worlds and the Plus worlds, and I'm still going back to get stars. I'm up to 59 and I have little interest in stopping. The only thing that'll get me to take this game out of my GBA SP is Mario Golf in 11 days. The expert levels are great too, and high scores are always enjoyable to pursue.

 

[GDJustin]

I dunno. It's a fun game. Really fun, at times. Like when you get a tough puzzle on your 2nd or 3rd try instead of your 25th. But... I dunno.

3.5 DOESN'T really seem that harsh. 3.5 means it's a good game, that you should pick up if you're into that sort of thing. What's so good about it that makes it deserving of a 4? I'm not arguing with you specifically... more kinda thinking out loud.

Nothing about the game really jumped out at me and made me say "holy CRAP this is awesome. I need to give this a really good score so people pay attention." I've thought about the games I've given 4s to, including Culcept and LaPucelle, and I don't think M Vs. DK is as compelling as either of them, even when considering the leeway mobile games are given. There's nothing wrong with it... there's just also nothing really compelling or amazing about it.

 

[DCharlie]

I want a new GBA only Mario game with these lush graphics.

Game is okay - prefer DK 94 though.

 

[GDJustin]

It's games like Advance Wars and it's sequel, Mario and Luigi, the Metroids... those are the mobile games that deserve 4s and 5s in my opinion. This one just isn't quite at that level, despite being really compelling.

 

[Flynn]

I find this game very intriguing in a similar way to Wario Ware.

Both games educate us in the language of gaming. For veterans it might be a refresher course, but for neophytes they're getting deep training in the gameplay mechanics and ideas.

Mario Vs Donkey Kong sorta ups the ante in also educating new gamers in the Mario and Donkey Kong mythologies. Not only do enemies, areas and music from the other games surface, but unique gameplay elements from the games also return.

Mario Vs Donkey Kong may not be a perfect game, but to say that there's not a lot going on with the game means that you're not really looking.

 

[bobbyconover]

I want a new GBA only Mario game with these lush graphics.

Really?? I thought the graphics were its biggest flaw by far. Despite the fact that it animates pretty well, I think the game looks crunky and awful overall.

It's quite fun, though, despite the fact that yet again it's a not-as-good port/remake of an older, superior, game.

 

[DCharlie]

I admit it's an aquired taste - but the 3rd world looks lovely, the Mario sprite is particularly good (nice animation too)

The fire enemies are nice, but the other enemies do indeed suck.

However, stick some more of the old regular enemies in there and i'd buy into that.

 

[StrikerObi]

I'd give it a 4. There's obviously something wrong with you. You probably feel jilted because you burned through it so fast. That's not because it's short. That's because it's addictive as fuck.

Edit: POST 100 I'M A MEMBER!

 

[GDJustin]

I'd give it a 4. There's obviously something wrong with you. You probably feel jilted because you burned through it so fast. That's not because it's short. That's because it's addictive as fuck.

Edit: POST 100 I'M A MEMBER!

Well thanks to the fact that I'm a game reviewer I lose some sense of value (games just getting handed to me, and all), but I do think the length was part of it. A week of regular playing should get gamers through the regular and plus worlds. The expert worlds will obviously take much longer, and the challenge is welcome these days... but still. The vast majority of the game can be experienced far too quickly.

 

[Wario64]

8/10

Game gets a lot better at the end and the plus worlds are pretty fun. Expert levels rock. I don't know why but the game keeps pulling me back in and I HAVE to get a star on every level

The game could have used better music though. At least the remixed Mario/DK theme on the title screen is pretty cool

 

[BuddyC]

I just couldn't figure out how to get some high scores on the second world.

 

[Agent Dormer]

I think I'll get it soon.

 

[Son of Godzilla]

You should submit your entire article to that site that judges words for their percentage Good/Evil and use whichever one strikes your fancy. *Insert barb about usefulness of a numerical rating representing the worth of anything, much less a puzzle based experience in hand-eye coordination*

Anyways, 3.5 is a really good score. Not for the game, just in general.

 

[Eggo]

What kind of reviewer solicits public opinion for the purpose of writing a review? It's your review. It should be what you think of the game. If you don't think it's great, say that. If people don't agree with you, that's fine. You should write a review to be honest, not to kow-tow to some fanboys on the Internet. If you think the game is a 3.5 out of 5, that's what you should give it. Don't let that score change due to something someone else says.

 

[Mejilan]

What kind of a reviewer first decides on a game's score and THEN tries to justify it with pros and cons?

Play the game, list where it fails and succeeds, and THEN rate it accordingly. Sheesh.

Mario vs DK is a VERY solid game. It stands well against other 1st party original titles on the GBA, if not quite as high. I'm not a huge fan of its presentation, but its gameplay is golden, as is the replay value. I found it immediately gripping and extremely well paced. A very worthy followup to the GB game Donkey Kong 1994.

 

[GDJustin]

What kind of reviewer solicits public opinion for the purpose of writing a review? It's your review. It should be what you think of the game. If you don't think it's great, say that. If people don't agree with you, that's fine. You should write a review to be honest, not to kow-tow to some fanboys on the Internet. If you think the game is a 3.5 out of 5, that's what you should give it. Don't let that score change due to something someone else says.

I think you misunderstood, which is fair enough. I didn't really explain what this thread was all about. I wasn't soliciting public opinion for the purpose of writing a review. I was soliciting public opinion, period. Nothing anyone said would influence my score. If I'm ever reviewing a game later than many other sources I avoid ALL other reviews of the title, and certainly avoid gamerankings. I don't want to wonder why I like it so much more or less than most other critics.

I gave XGRA the lowest score of ANY print magazine or website, according to GR. I also gave Viewtiful Joe a perfect 5, when most people thought it was good, but not THAT good.

Rest assured, I wasn't making this thread to see what kind of score I 'should' be giving it. I just wanted to discuss the game a bit (and put off writing a bit longer)

And Mej, you can give your observations and opinions a rough numerical value before you've gotten them down on paper.

 

[jenov4]

I'm about halfway through the game, and so far its been excellent. I would personally give it a 4.0 / 5.0..

 

[TheDiave]

Mario VS DK rocks... It's the anti-6.8.

I give it two thumbs up!

 

[Mejilan]

Yeah, a rough early score is one thing. Yet you say you can't see yourself giving it anything higher than a 3.5 and in the same 'breath' mention that you can't find any real flaws in the game. That's what had me scratching my head.

Perhaps you merely don't LIKE the game. But you shouldn't penalize the game for not being up your alley, imho. If there's little technically wrong, and you can see why people who do like these types of games would love it, you should rate it high, on its merits. That's how I always tried to review games.

 

[GDJustin]

Perhaps you merely don't LIKE the game. But you shouldn't penalize the game for not being up your alley, imho. If there's little technically wrong, and you can see why people who do like these types of games would love it, you should rate it high, on its merits. That's how I always tried to review games.

You're joking, right? If I don't like a game, but almost everyone else does, it should get a higher score? A review I write SHOULDN'T be based on my opinion and my opinion alone?

I honestly don't know what to say to that. I shouldn't penalize a game's score for me not liking it... lol. Now I've heard everything.

 

[Mejilan]

Absolutely. I can't stand sports games, yet on occasion I've been giving sports games to review. That's how the cookie crumbles sometimes. I don't remember which it was anymore, but it was a football (US) game. I didn't particularly enjoy the game because I don't like football video games, but I weighed its features against those of its predecessors and current competitors, and found it a sound package. There was nothing in it, that I could detect, that would turn off a fan of the series or similarly styled games, and had a couple of added features which impressed me, at the time, with their cleverness.

I didn't let my general dislike of the gameplay itself reflect in the scoring or technical portions of the review.

Now, had I found the game to be a broken piece of shit, something that most people wouldn't even consider over other competing products, in other words, featuring gameplay that I'd be hardpressed to find anyone who'd find it enjoyable, THEN I'd rate it low on those grounds.

I'm not accusing you of anything here. But I find it very hard to believe that you'd rate something a 3.5/5 when you're admittedly hardpressed to find any flaws. That's what led me to believe that you have little to no technical problems with the package itself, just didn't find it all that enjoyable, personally.

If relevant, I would include a paragraph in my review sharing my view of the experience, but if that view was negative and NOT grounded on any of the technical aspects of the game design or execution, then I would not allow it to reflect my scoring.

 

[Mister Zimbu]

6.5 or 7/10 for me. The graphics are pretty bad (prerendered is ALWAYS the worst way to go), and the controls are just downright awful- incredibly unresponsive.

 

[Dilbert]

You're joking, right? If I don't like a game, but almost everyone else does, it should get a higher score? A review I write SHOULDN'T be based on my opinion and my opinion alone?

I honestly don't know what to say to that. I shouldn't penalize a game's score for me not liking it... lol. Now I've heard everything.

I don't think that was his point. He was responding to your BASIS for giving a game a certain score, and wasn't suggesting that you canvass a group of people to merge their collective opinions into a score.

As a general point, the two statements "X is a good _____" and "X is a _____ I like" are NOT synonymous. For example, if I was reviewing a large truck (say an F-150 or something like that), I may very well find that it's a "good" truck: lots of cargo space, powerful engine, comfortable cab and ride, decent price. On the other hand, I simply HATE large trucks -- I think they consume a lot of gas, eat up tons of space in parking lots, and block my view on the highway. I may have a boss who is very effective ("good") -- makes sure that projects are done on time and that I have the resources I need to get my job done -- but whose personality or opinions clash with mine to the point that I don't enjoy working with him.

Likewise, with games, there are certain standards by which you may judge a game's "goodness," and one of them OUGHT to be whether or not you had fun. However, the "fun factor" should not be the SOLE basis for the score, and you should at least be open to the possibility that your own personal biases or the state of mind you were in when reviewing the game affected your perception. If "everyone else" likes a game, and you don't, it doesn't mean that you're wrong...but it SHOULD be a sign that perhaps you have a unique point of view, or that you missed something in your review. If you've spent the time thinking your opinion through and you're still convinced that the general public have lousy taste, then by all means offer a contrasting opinion.

The reviews I respect the most -- and this is true in ANY genre, not just games -- are those where the evaluation criteria are clearly stated, and the specific data which led to the numerical evaluation are described. I would tend to rank a game's fun factor much lower if it was extremely hard since I'm a casual gamer and don't have the time to put up with that shit -- I want to pick up and play, enjoy myself, and get better over time. But that "negative" for me could be a huge positive for someone else who is looking for a more challenging game.

 

[GDJustin]

Alright, maybe we just misunderstood each other. It's not that I'm not a fan of the genre at all. In fact, I'm one of the only guys at the site that likes "thinking" games. All the SRPGs and games of this sort come to me, because I'm such a big fan of them.

The problem is NOT that the game doesn't match my personal taste. If that were the case then I'd do the same thing you do. I'd compare it to other games in the genre and pay less attention to my own individual opinion. The thing is, even though this is the kind of game I relish, I thought it deserves a 3.5. I think a 4 is slightly too high, even if I can't list off 8 reasons why.

Keep in mind a 3.5/5 is still a good score. On our review scale, 3 is good, and 4 is excellent. That basically means M Vs. DK is a notch above good, and a notch below excellent. I think that catagorizes the game perfectly. I don't think it's excellent, despite being hard pressed to find real flaws.

My review is up now. Check it out and then level complaints against me

 

[Mejilan]

I think we did misunderstand each other. Care to provide us with a link?

 

[GDJustin]

I think part of the problem is you're kinda upset that I gave it a 3.5 without really listing any major things wrong with the game. I guess I don't look at it that way. I didn't see anything in the game that made it DESERVING of a 4 or higher. Like I said before, 3 is good. When I review a game for the site, I start with a 3 in mind. Then if there's some stuff I don't like, then it starts getting knocked down a couple pegs. Perhaps to 2, which is just 'ok.'

On the other hand, if there's stuff I like, then it starts to climb above that 3. M Vs. DK did, but there wasn't enough awesomeness there to get it above a 3.5.

I dunno. I don't feel like I'm explaining myself very well. Our review scale isn't any HARSHER than other places, it's just different. The the majority of games should get a 3/5 on our scale, even though that translated to 60%, which is damn low by game review standards. 3/5 is "good but not great," which is where most games lie. My experience with MArio Vs. DK led me to feel it was better than that "good but not great" label, yet it itself was not great.

 

[GDJustin]

I think we did misunderstand each other. Care to provide us with a link?

http://www.gamedaily.com/wireless/review/?id=344&game_id=1712&source=00001

Edit: don't miss the extended review link. Many people do on GD's current layout.

 

[GDJustin]

I think this quote from my review best nailed how I feel:

"It's not a "must have," but you could certainly do much worse than to pick up Mario vs. Donkey Kong."


Once you start getting into the 4 and 4.5 range, that implies that people need to really sit up and take notice of this game. It's getting close to "must have" status. I simply don't think the game is that good, even without a list of flaws present. People who buy it will most likely enjoy it, but it's simply not that amazing, imo.

 

[Mejilan]

Yeah, I found the link myself, thanks. I found it to be a competent review. Certainly lacked enthusiasm, but that's neither a bad thing nor a surprise. I think you and I have some very different methods for reviewing titles, but that's not necessarily a bad thing either. For one, I don't start with any numeric values, and in general, that's the very last thing I hand out. I don't put much stock in 'all in one' numerical or alphabetical (or symbolic) rating scales, not even my own chosen values.

The substance of a review is much more important, I felt that yours did the game justice. It's a pity you didn't enjoy it more, however. (The game.) Edit - despite the game's questionable presentation, I think it IS a must own, a very refreshing and original title, and one that stands out from the crowd, positively. I have no problems with the character sprites, and dig the animation, it's just the backgrounds and cutscenes which, for the most part, irk me. Well, not 100% original, but many people, including myself, missed Donkey Kong 1994 back in the day. I do not think it was quite as good as DK94, actually, but it's not like there are bucketloads of this type of game to choose from, so I'm very happy with this revival.

 

[GDJustin]

I agree that the review lacked enthusiasm, but that's because I can't really decide what a game review should be, necessarily. I go back and forth on the subject. Sometimes I think it should be dominated by almost a "fact sheet" of what exactly the game is and how it plays out. Like if someone were to read it they'd have a very good idea what they were getting themself into. The reviewers opinion would almost be like an afterthought.

Other times I feel like I should be writing for a more informed audience, and not really get into what he game is all about, and instead fill it with more opinion. Like saying "the gameplay was very enjoyable" without really elaborating on what the gameplay is (for lack of a better example).

Anyway, you just brought up the reason I don't feel like the game is a "must have." The title is an amalgamation of the previous DK titles, but almost all the elements it ties together were done better in the originals. This is a good, quality title, but not one that people NEED to play, whereas Advance Wars (for example) is.

 

[Mejilan]

Hahahah. I've had that same problem with reviewing, and ultimately, to me, it just comes down to what game I am reviewing, and just how represented the genre is to the relevant audience.

Btw, by 'enthusiasm' I didn't necessarily mean your fondness (or lack thereof) of the actual game. One can be enthusiastic about presentation, sound, graphics, gameplay, etc, and still not like the overall package.

 

[Wario64]

Well I finally completed the entire game last night, 100%. I thought it was pretty fun but I don't think I'll touch the game again. The Expert stages seemed pretty cool at first but they didn't really seem all that difficult later on. Really wished there were more harder levels. The difficulty seems to jump all over the place. One level could be tough while the next will be really easy.

I don't consider it a must have game either, but it's not a bad game at all. I still stand by my 8/10 score

 

[slayn]

the game was ok. It felt like an extremely easy and simplified version of Lost Vikings to me. I would have prefered more puzzle oriented design rather than platforming... if your gonna go platforming, I'd just rather have a normal 2d mario game.

It didn't help that shortly after finishing it I was introduced to that ninja flash game that is far more challenging in its platforming elements either =\

http://www.harveycartel.org/metanet/downloads.html