No it's not. That's not what the term means. End of. [Those who don't get the joke don't get a cookie.]
[EDIT: Scardoll gets no cookie for understanding a joke.]
Wow, what an insightful comment! I'm glad you had so much to say on my review.
For the record...
bad –adjective
- 1.not good in any manner or degree.
- 2.having a wicked or evil character; morally reprehensible
- 3.of poor or inferior quality; defective; deficient.
- 4.inadequate or below standard; not satisfactory for use
I believe it to be of poor or inferior quality, and I also believe it is below the standard for the rest of the Metroid series. If you disagree, that's fine; just remember to actually post some reasoning more than "YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!"
Fight. Struggle. Endure. Suffer. LIVE.
Actually, my response was a parody of those hater who... oh why should I bother explaining this now? It's already ten days too late.
Oh, I actually thought you were serious.
Fight. Struggle. Endure. Suffer. LIVE.
Nah, I do agree on several things mentioned here, even though I think calling it straight up a bad game is just like calling you straight up wrong.
I disagree. I feel that this game IS not the best Metroid game. However, Metroid has a seriously high standard. I DO believe that it is a good game, one of the best of last year. I had a blast playing it, then playing it over again. You seem to love the word stupid, but I don't think it applies except for certain enemy behaviors. And the items? Have you gotten all of them? I haven't. They show you the relative location because other wise you would never find them. Some people can't find them WITH the map showing where they are. Basically, I think it's a great game, fantastic even. But bad by Metroid standards.
Did I mention that the title is the most gratuitously attention hogging title for any article I've ever seen?
When will people learn that different =/= bad?
I'm surprised a review this old still gets replies.
Long, unskippable cutscenes, awkward combat, linearity, generic level design, and forgettable music are certainly "different" elements I could live without.
If you think it's an intentional attention hogging gesture, here's an idea: Don't pay attention to it.
Fight. Struggle. Endure. Suffer. LIVE.
Long unskippable cutscenes - Can't argue with that.
Awkward combat - Subjective.
Linearity - Subjective to personal tastes.
Generic level design - Subjective to personal tastes.
Forgettable music - Subjective.
Reviews are subjective? Well, there's a shocker. Next you'll be telling me the sky is blue.
Fight. Struggle. Endure. Suffer. LIVE.
It's actually a common misconception that reviews are all about opinions instead of being more objective and informative.
It's also a common misconception that you're supposed to hunt down and correct every reviewer
who does not validate your previously established purchasing decisions.
Fan feedback exists so potential buyers can roughly gauge how good a title is by how well it is received. Not every reviewer is good at putting their dislike of something into words, so negative criticisms will not always make sense, but the fact that the dislike is there should tell you that a certain demographic or percentage of the fans didn't receive it well for whatever reason.
That is useful information for the potential buyer, but if you're only reading a review for fun because you already own the game and already have an opinion of it, leave the reviewer alone and go write your own review.
Besides, you can't go up to someone and say "No, you're not allowed to dislike it for that reason". Psychologically, it just doesn't work and doesn't accomplish anything.
Oh, sorry, I forgot the priviledge of voicing your opinion only applies to people who share your opinion.
Most reviews are either only useful for those who already have and played the game, or "This game is great/sucks, but I'm not going to tell you how", which still isn't very informative.
I suggest for the average consumer to realize what their own preferences are so they can identify where they differ from the mainstream.
LOL at suggesting this review is targeted towards people who bought the game (Why explain basic game mechanics like the missile perspective switch then?) or that it just says the game sucks without saying why (Why explain basic mechanics like the missile perspective switch then?).
The entire point of reviews is to inform consumers so that they don't have to waste time and money on finding out their preferences to a game. If you're against reviews, don't post on a review.
Of course, you're not against reviews, you're against this review, because the opinions contained in this review differ from your own and you can't deal with that.
Fight. Struggle. Endure. Suffer. LIVE.
There's nothing wrong with voicing your opinion; that's why I suggested you go and write your own review. But what you're doing is trying to convince someone else to alter their review until it matches your opinion (even when there are already a lot of reviews out there that you agree with!)
I understand it's fun to read reviews and see if the mainstream agrees or disagrees with you — heck, I do it myself all the time — but if you go through life unable to accept anything that doesn't validate your own views, you're going to be very miserable.
(And for the record, I kinda liked Other M, and I disagree with the reviewer on a few points, but I felt I had to stand up for him after that "common misconception" line. I will probably go away now.)
"If you think it's an intentional attention hogging gesture, here's an idea: Don't pay attention to it."
Because Dont Like Dont Read has worked so well in the past.
You actually tried to compare this situation to Dont Like Dont Read? Wow, try harder.
It has nothing to do with whether you like or dislike my review. I'm saying your strategy is counter-productive. If you think the title is intentionally attention hogging, then don't give in, don't feed the troll, and don't be an idiot.
Fight. Struggle. Endure. Suffer. LIVE.
... You know there is way not to sound like a complete douche when trying to convince somebody that something wasn't intentional. I already found it funny how you even responded to my comment the way you did, stop making this into a SNL sketch.
Try harder on what? Making you look bad? I don't think I even need to lift a finger for that anymore. Plus, I think your strategy is way too outdated. Of course you can feed the troll, it just all comes down to the rat poison.
Oh, and I like the fact you pretty much admitted being a troll, because that always helps your credibility in so many ways.
When I said "don't feed the troll" I was using your perspective of me. If I wanted to troll, I would have talked about the story/sexism debate/Samus' character.
Here's the argument so far.
"Oh, and P.S. You're an attention hog!"
"You can throw your little closing comment up your ass."
"Don'tLikeDon'tRead!"
"<GTFO phrased as a pretentious comment>"
"<You're a douchebag! phrased as a pretentious comment>"
Want to talk about the game instead?
Fight. Struggle. Endure. Suffer. LIVE.
No, I rather enjoy seeing how much deeper you can dig yourself into the rabbit hole, over something as simple as some individual voicing how attentiong hogging he thinks a title is.
Oh, and nice strawman there.
Oh yes, because you know so much about me and what I think. Thank you for your time, Dr. Phil.
This anger is highly amusing. Please continue.
That was over a year ago!
Do you really want t- wait, that is exactly what you want.
You bastard! >:D
"Who gave you permission to talk to me, mongrel?"
[[quoteblock]]This anger is highly amusing. Please continue.[[quoteblock]] Thanks for bumping this. I forgot I even wrote this, so seeing it again was quite the surprise. :)
Fight. Struggle. Endure. Suffer. LIVE.Leave a Comment:
It's Just A Bad Game
Since Metroid: Other M has nearly split the Metroid fandom in half, it's a bit hard to say anything about the storyline without being attacked by rabid wildebeests who are convinced that you either are a misogynistic idiot, or a firm believer in flat characters
That said, Other M is just a bad game.
The gameplay is bland, except in a few particularly stupid areas. Combat is rendered into a mess with the new "sense-move" technique, which makes Samus invincible as long as you tap the D-pad. To balance out this piece of stupidity, many of the bosses/enemies barely take damage from weapons. A particularly stupid case is the post-credits boss, which has literally zero strategy beyond "dodge-shoot-dodge-shoot." The missile system is also broken; to fire a missile, the player must switch to a first-person perspective by pointing the Wii-mote at the screen. The switch is slow and Samus is nearly immobilized while in this viewpoint, making it hazardous.
The Metroid series is famous for its exploration elements, but sadly, Other M excised the majority of them. Doors lock behind you to prevent backtracking, items show up on the map to ruin any element of surprise, and branching pathways are either blocked or non-existent. You can forget about any sequence breaking here. After the credits, there is more freedom to explore the ship, but you'll still have to go through the entire campaign to get that privilege.
Even then, there is little point to exploring. The levels are boring. The Metroid Prime games had levels such as a technologically advanced fortress filled with Tron Lines or a city in the sky. Here, we get the basic "Ship," "Lava," "Jungle," and "Ice" environments that were done better in other games in the series. The music is dull ambience and is too dim to hear at normal settings, in stark contrast to pretty much every offering in the series other than Metroid 2. The voice work varies from cheesy to just plain dull, and the script is laborious. You'll have to listen to every minute of it, though, since cutscenes are unskippable on the first playthrough.
The amount of press begotten by Other M is undeserved. If this were not part of an established franchise, it would have been forgotten by now. I bought this game for retail price, but I still recommend not getting it for any value. There are better games to play.