Mario is a pretty cool game 
however after 20 years of playing mario 
the core gameplay experience hasnt really changed 
they have added some variety but mario is mario 
besides i havent trusted gamespot since 08

" Review.  To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked. "

Super Mario Galaxy 2 has NOTHING on Tony Hawk Pro Skating 3

" Super Mario Galaxy 2 has NOTHING on Tony Hawk Pro Skating 3 "

" Mario is a pretty cool game however after 20 years of playing mario the core gameplay experience hasnt really changed they have added some variety but mario is mario besides i havent trusted gamespot since 08 "

" @kishan6 said:

" Mario is a pretty cool game however after 20 years of playing mario the core gameplay experience hasnt really changed they have added some variety but mario is mario besides i havent trusted gamespot since 08 "

I don't know if this is a valid critique. Look at the most popular genre of this generation: First-Person Shooters. The core gameplay mechanic of "shoot man in face" has not really changed but people still like them. IF anything, i think platformers have probably changed more than most other genres. "

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" Review.  To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked. "

When did the presence of online features or the length of the game start playing such an important role in determining how good a game is? "

" @kishan6 said:

" Mario is a pretty cool game however after 20 years of playing mario the core gameplay experience hasnt really changed they have added some variety but mario is mario besides i havent trusted gamespot since 08 "

I don't know if this is a valid critique. Look at the most popular genre of this generation: First-Person Shooters. The core gameplay mechanic of "shoot man in face" has not really changed but people still like them. IF anything, i think platformers have probably changed more than most other genres. "

" @Supermarius said:

" @kishan6 said:

" Mario is a pretty cool game however after 20 years of playing mario the core gameplay experience hasnt really changed they have added some variety but mario is mario besides i havent trusted gamespot since 08 "

I don't know if this is a valid critique. Look at the most popular genre of this generation: First-Person Shooters. The core gameplay mechanic of "shoot man in face" has not really changed but people still like them. IF anything, i think platformers have probably changed more than most other genres. "

But that's one, maybe two, generations en masse. There's usually one of these games per generation and it's made into a big deal. I'm not sure I agree as I haven't played SMG2 but I see where he's coming from when you apply that idea to Zelda which has been near enough the same game since the NES. "

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" Review.  To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked. "

When did the presence of online features or the length of the game start playing such an important role in determining how good a game is? "

If you can beat a in 5 hours instead of 50, it's a huge difference. The longer the better, unless it's a bad game. Online modes offer lots of re-playability and give you more bang for your buck. "

" @HandsomeDead said:

" @Supermarius said:

" @kishan6 said:

" Mario is a pretty cool game however after 20 years of playing mario the core gameplay experience hasnt really changed they have added some variety but mario is mario besides i havent trusted gamespot since 08 "

I don't know if this is a valid critique. Look at the most popular genre of this generation: First-Person Shooters. The core gameplay mechanic of "shoot man in face" has not really changed but people still like them. IF anything, i think platformers have probably changed more than most other genres. "

But that's one, maybe two, generations en masse. There's usually one of these games per generation and it's made into a big deal. I'm not sure I agree as I haven't played SMG2 but I see where he's coming from when you apply that idea to Zelda which has been near enough the same game since the NES. "

its not the case that there is usually only one of these games per generation. In the 8 bit era there were 3 or 4 mario games and 2 zelda games, in the 16 bit era there were 2 mario core games, maybe 3 if you count allstars. If you start counting at the 64 bit era then it seems like a pattern but i t hink that the slower rate of game production is more a factor of the increasing time and resources required to make a good genre game versus the length of the average modern console cycle. They would have made more games if they could have. This generation is running long because of the global recession, so we are getting multiple entries. "

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" Review.  To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked. "

When did the presence of online features or the length of the game start playing such an important role in determining how good a game is? "

If you can beat a in 5 hours instead of 50, it's a huge difference. The longer the better, unless it's a bad game. Online modes offer lots of re-playability and give you more bang for your buck. "

It takes four hours to beat Portal (possible less) "

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" Review.  To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked. "

When did the presence of online features or the length of the game start playing such an important role in determining how good a game is? "

If you can beat a in 5 hours instead of 50, it's a huge difference. The longer the better, unless it's a bad game. Online modes offer lots of re-playability and give you more bang for your buck. "

It takes four hours to beat Portal (possible less) "

Which is EXACTLY why I still haven't bought Portal yet. "

I've heard that the game has a substantial amount of content as long as you play past the requisite number of stars. As long as there's a lot of unique stuff in it, which there apparently is, online capabilities and such shouldn't matter.

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" Review.  To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked. "

When did the presence of online features or the length of the game start playing such an important role in determining how good a game is? "

If you can beat a in 5 hours instead of 50, it's a huge difference. The longer the better, unless it's a bad game. Online modes offer lots of re-playability and give you more bang for your buck. "

It takes four hours to beat Portal (possible less) "

Which is EXACTLY why I still haven't bought Portal yet. "

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" Review.  To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked. "

When did the presence of online features or the length of the game start playing such an important role in determining how good a game is? "

If you can beat a in 5 hours instead of 50, it's a huge difference. The longer the better, unless it's a bad game. Online modes offer lots of re-playability and give you more bang for your buck. "

It takes four hours to beat Portal (possible less) "

Which is EXACTLY why I still haven't bought Portal yet. "

Then you're missing out, but since you seem adamant about ignoring my argument, I guess there isn't much else for me to say to you. "

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" Review.  To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked. "

When did the presence of online features or the length of the game start playing such an important role in determining how good a game is? "

If you can beat a in 5 hours instead of 50, it's a huge difference. The longer the better, unless it's a bad game. Online modes offer lots of re-playability and give you more bang for your buck. "

It takes four hours to beat Portal (possible less) "

Which is EXACTLY why I still haven't bought Portal yet. "

isnt portal free on steam now, or was earlier this week? "

I don't get it. The reviewer admits that the story takes a backseat, a flaw in every mario game and galaxy 1. How do you make a perfect game without a good story?

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" Review.  To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked. "

When did the presence of online features or the length of the game start playing such an important role in determining how good a game is? "

If you can beat a in 5 hours instead of 50, it's a huge difference. The longer the better, unless it's a bad game. Online modes offer lots of re-playability and give you more bang for your buck. "

It takes four hours to beat Portal (possible less) "

Which is EXACTLY why I still haven't bought Portal yet. "

Then you're missing out, but since you seem adamant about ignoring my argument, I guess there isn't much else for me to say to you. "

A game can be good even if it's short, like Portal.  I really don't know what to say to your argument, it's just stupid. If I make a game that's 3 minutes long, but it's an awesome 3 minutes, does it make it a good game? Fuck no. Lasting apparel is a huge part to making a game good.  What if Fallout 3 was only 4 hours long? The insane length of the campaign was what made Fallout 3 special. You could play it for a while and not get bored. It made the game last longer than most other game. "

" I don't get it. The reviewer admits that the story takes a backseat, a flaw in every mario game and galaxy 1. How do you make a perfect game without a good story? "

" I don't get it. The reviewer admits that the story takes a backseat, a flaw in every mario game and galaxy 1. How do you make a perfect game without a good story? "

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" Review.  To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked. "

When did the presence of online features or the length of the game start playing such an important role in determining how good a game is? "

If you can beat a in 5 hours instead of 50, it's a huge difference. The longer the better, unless it's a bad game. Online modes offer lots of re-playability and give you more bang for your buck. "

It takes four hours to beat Portal (possible less) "

Which is EXACTLY why I still haven't bought Portal yet. "

Then you're missing out, but since you seem adamant about ignoring my argument, I guess there isn't much else for me to say to you. "

A game can be good even if it's short, like Portal.  I really don't know what to say to your argument, it's just stupid. If I make a game that's 3 minutes long, but it's an awesome 3 minutes, does it make it a good game? Fuck no. Lasting apparel is a huge part to making a game good.  What if Fallout 3 was only 4 hours long? The insane length of the campaign was what made Fallout 3 special. You could play it for a while and not get bored. It made the game last longer than most other game. "

If a game is fun, it's fun, and fun games are generally considered good.  Whether that fun lasts three minutes or 100 hours doesn't matter.  The only way I could really see it matter is the cost to content.  A three minute game I wouldn't pay for.  If it was a free download, I'd probably give it a shot.  A hundred hour game?  If the game is good, spending $50-$60 isn't a bad monetary investment, in my mind.  It doesn't mean that the three minute game isn't good, however, because different games aspire to different goals.  If that goal is a graphic adventure parody about doing everything in my power to not shit my pants, and its damn good fun, I'm not going to turn around and say it's a bad game, even if it takes all of a few minutes to earn everything the game has to offer. "

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" Review.  To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked. "

When did the presence of online features or the length of the game start playing such an important role in determining how good a game is? "

If you can beat a in 5 hours instead of 50, it's a huge difference. The longer the better, unless it's a bad game. Online modes offer lots of re-playability and give you more bang for your buck. "

It takes four hours to beat Portal (possible less) "

Which is EXACTLY why I still haven't bought Portal yet. "

Then you're missing out, but since you seem adamant about ignoring my argument, I guess there isn't much else for me to say to you. "

A game can be good even if it's short, like Portal.  I really don't know what to say to your argument, it's just stupid. If I make a game that's 3 minutes long, but it's an awesome 3 minutes, does it make it a good game? Fuck no. Lasting apparel is a huge part to making a game good.  What if Fallout 3 was only 4 hours long? The insane length of the campaign was what made Fallout 3 special. You could play it for a while and not get bored. It made the game last longer than most other game. "

If a game is fun, it's fun, and fun games are generally considered good.  Whether that fun lasts three minutes or 100 hours doesn't matter.  The only way I could really see it matter is the cost to content.  A three minute game I wouldn't pay for.  If it was a free download, I'd probably give it a shot.  A hundred hour game?  If the game is good, spending $50-$60 isn't a bad monetary investment, in my mind.  It doesn't mean that the three minute game isn't good, however, because different games aspire to different goals.  If that goal is a graphic adventure parody about doing everything in my power to not shit my pants, and its damn good fun, I'm not going to turn around and say it's a bad game, even if it takes all of a few minutes to earn everything the game has to offer. "

" I don't get it. The reviewer admits that the story takes a backseat, a flaw in every mario game and galaxy 1. How do you make a perfect game without a good story? "

If price is really the cusp of your argument, then you really should just wait to buy all your games.

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" Review.  To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked. "

When did the presence of online features or the length of the game start playing such an important role in determining how good a game is? "

If you can beat a in 5 hours instead of 50, it's a huge difference. The longer the better, unless it's a bad game. Online modes offer lots of re-playability and give you more bang for your buck. "

It takes four hours to beat Portal (possible less) "

Which is EXACTLY why I still haven't bought Portal yet. "

Then you're missing out, but since you seem adamant about ignoring my argument, I guess there isn't much else for me to say to you. "

A game can be good even if it's short, like Portal.  I really don't know what to say to your argument, it's just stupid. If I make a game that's 3 minutes long, but it's an awesome 3 minutes, does it make it a good game? Fuck no. Lasting apparel is a huge part to making a game good.  What if Fallout 3 was only 4 hours long? The insane length of the campaign was what made Fallout 3 special. You could play it for a while and not get bored. It made the game last longer than most other game. "

If a game is fun, it's fun, and fun games are generally considered good.  Whether that fun lasts three minutes or 100 hours doesn't matter.  The only way I could really see it matter is the cost to content.  A three minute game I wouldn't pay for.  If it was a free download, I'd probably give it a shot.  A hundred hour game?  If the game is good, spending $50-$60 isn't a bad monetary investment, in my mind.  It doesn't mean that the three minute game isn't good, however, because different games aspire to different goals.  If that goal is a graphic adventure parody about doing everything in my power to not shit my pants, and its damn good fun, I'm not going to turn around and say it's a bad game, even if it takes all of a few minutes to earn everything the game has to offer. "

I probably should have included price in my argument, but I thought it was implied. Assassin's Creed II was a 10/10 in my book, but does that mean I feel justified spending 10/10 on it? Ehhhh...not really...but my dumb-ass still did it. "

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" @Hailinel said:

" @AlwaysAngry said:

" Review.  To me, that really says something. I don't have a Wii, but with this game getting a higher score than Red Dead Redemption on most sites, it must be a seriously good game. No online, and you can beat it in a few hours, but it still gets a 10? I'm as confused as I am shocked. "

When did the presence of online features or the length of the game start playing such an important role in determining how good a game is? "

If you can beat a in 5 hours instead of 50, it's a huge difference. The longer the better, unless it's a bad game. Online modes offer lots of re-playability and give you more bang for your buck. "

It takes four hours to beat Portal (possible less) "

Which is EXACTLY why I still haven't bought Portal yet. "

Then you're missing out, but since you seem adamant about ignoring my argument, I guess there isn't much else for me to say to you. "

A game can be good even if it's short, like Portal.  I really don't know what to say to your argument, it's just stupid. If I make a game that's 3 minutes long, but it's an awesome 3 minutes, does it make it a good game? Fuck no. Lasting apparel is a huge part to making a game good.  What if Fallout 3 was only 4 hours long? The insane length of the campaign was what made Fallout 3 special. You could play it for a while and not get bored. It made the game last longer than most other game. "

If a game is fun, it's fun, and fun games are generally considered good.  Whether that fun lasts three minutes or 100 hours doesn't matter.  The only way I could really see it matter is the cost to content.  A three minute game I wouldn't pay for.  If it was a free download, I'd probably give it a shot.  A hundred hour game?  If the game is good, spending $50-$60 isn't a bad monetary investment, in my mind.  It doesn't mean that the three minute game isn't good, however, because different games aspire to different goals.  If that goal is a graphic adventure parody about doing everything in my power to not shit my pants, and its damn good fun, I'm not going to turn around and say it's a bad game, even if it takes all of a few minutes to earn everything the game has to offer. "

I probably should have included price in my argument, but I thought it was implied. Assassin's Creed II was a 10/10 in my book, but does that mean I feel justified spending 10/10 on it? Ehhhh...not really...but my dumb-ass still did it. "

Spending 10/10?  Your analogy makes no sense. "

" I don't get it. The reviewer admits that the story takes a backseat, a flaw in every mario game and galaxy 1. How do you make a perfect game without a good story? "

To the op,mabe cause the game was being regarded on it's own merits, and not what appeals to you. To compare it to RDR is what really throws me. Why do that? RDR is an entirely different genre. You want to go that route, start comparing red dead redemtion to other games like A Boy and his Blob. 
 
From what I hear, RDR has some reported serious teething problems, though I am anxious to start it. Right now I am playing Alan Wake, and to me that is a better game I would think than galaxy 2. But I have not a quarrel with the numerical ratings. And Mario Galaxy 2 will be going to my nephew.

Galaxy has a volume proposition that should attract cheap jobless modern gamers.  You're getting like 4 stars per dollar.

" To the op,mabe cause the game was being regarded on it's own merits, and not what appeals to you. To compare it to RDR is what really throws me. Why do that? RDR is an entirely different genre. You want to go that route, start comparing red dead redemtion to other games like A Boy and his Blob. 
 
From what I hear, RDR has some reported serious teething problems, though I am anxious to start it. Right now I am playing Alan Wake, and to me that is a better game I would think than galaxy 2. But I have not a quarrel with the numerical ratings. And Mario Galaxy 2 will be going to my nephew. "

But how fun is the actual game? How much fun do you have racing and in the shootouts? I would rather play a good game than stomach a large volume of mediocre tasks for a 'good' story.

I don't think they should review Mario games anymore.  There's no point.  It's going to get a perfect or near-perfect score, and the review is going to say that it plays just like Mario.  The only time it's even worth reviewing is if it's a dramatic shift in quality like Super Mario Sunshine.   That is the only time in which a review is useful.  Do you find reviews to guide your opinion on any Mario title?  Or that your decision to purchase or not purchase is really going to be affected by a review being an 8, a 9 or a 10?
 
A main series Mario review should read: It is Mario.  If you like Mario, get this game, because it is Mario.  If you don't like Mario, maybe not.

Also, do great games need great stories?  I was never impressed by the narrative of Solitaire, and yet that game is incredible.

Am I the only guy who thinks the video review of this sounds like a dude reading of page he just got handed randomly. Sounds like me when I had to do book reports in school or something.

Also Mario Galaxy is pretty sweet, pure gameplay, in the end that is all that matters.

I have nothing against Mario, but after years and years of playing this game I have simply grown out of it. Surely it deserves the score, but this game is totally off my radar, zzzzzzzzz.

Every post in this thread is mentally retarded.  Half of you guys think a game has to follow some sort of checklist where if it doesn't fulfill all of the points it isn't worth playing.  

@brainboy77 said:

" I don't get it. The reviewer admits that the story takes a backseat, a flaw in every mario game and galaxy 1. How do you make a perfect game without a good story? "  

" I don't get it. The reviewer admits that the story takes a backseat, a flaw in every mario game and galaxy 1. How do you make a perfect game without a good story? "

" I don't get it. The reviewer admits that the story takes a backseat, a flaw in every mario game and galaxy 1. How do you make a perfect game without a good story? "