Wii Music Review

By Ellie Gibson Published 12 November, 2008

Out of tune.

Version tested: Wii

There has already been plenty of debate about Wii Music. Some say it's another bold move by Nintendo to explore the wider uses of console technology and expand the gaming demographic. Some say it's another sign Nintendo is abandoning its hardcore fanbase in order to pursue a more lucrative agenda. Others say fcuk u in ur stupid ass Nintendo Wii Music sux ballz i want teh realz next gen.

But most of the debate has been about what Wii Music actually is. Is it a videogame? Is it a toy? Is it a creative tool? Is it a learning device? The answer is, it's attempting to be all of those things. The bad news is, it's not very good at being any of them.

Let's start with the basics. Wii Music features more than 60 virtual instruments, ranging from the obvious (drums, guitars, pianos, string instruments etc.) to the more obscure (sitars, banjos, DJ turntables) and the downright silly (dog and cat noises).

Each instrument is played using one of four control systems. The Piano method involves waving the remote and nunchuk up and down as if banging away on a keyboard. To play Guitar-style instruments you hold the nunchuk as if it were the neck, and make a strumming motion with the remote. The nunchuk also represents the neck when using the Violin method, and the remote is used as a bow.

In Trumpet mode, you hold the remote as if it were a wind instrument and press the 1 and 2 buttons to make sounds, raising or lowering the controller to increase or decrease the volume. You can also press buttons while using the other playing styles to produce different effects such as tremelo, glissando and arpeggio, but this isn't obligatory.

In fact, nothing in Wii Music is obligatory - you don't even have to worry about playing the right notes or keeping to the rhythm. Songs will sound better if you bang away in time, but there's no scoring system so no penalties. You even get to award yourself points after each song according to how well you think you did.

'Wii Music' Screenshot 1

It's unlikely Nintendo is trying to attract Gears of War fans with this title.

In this respect, Wii Music is very different to traditional videogames. But while there are no penalties, there is a reward system; new tracks, environments and instruments are unlocked by completing lessons and recording videos.

Game modes include 'Quick Jam', where a song, part and instrument are chosen for you, or a 'Custom Jam'. Here you can choose whether to play the melody, harmony, chord, bass or percussion parts. There are 50 songs to unlock, including classical pieces (Ode to Joy, Four Seasons), nursery rhymes (Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, My Grandfather's Clock), "as made famous by" pop hits (Every Breath You Take, Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go) and Nintendo theme tunes (F-Zero, Zelda, Super Mario Bros.).

There is some fun to be had with picking your song and instrument, changing the tempo and trying out different musical styles. I enjoyed beatboxing over a super-fast classical version of Material Girl, for example. For about three minutes. If you're really dedicated you can play through the song again and again, recording each part yourself. But this takes time and frankly, the novelty doesn't last that long.

It's this aspect of Wii Music, the ability to play with different instruments and experiment with combinations, that makes it feel like a toy. But does it have any value as a musical tool? To help answer that question I got some help from a couple of people who know about this sort of thing. First up was Clarissa, who has a degree in music and plays the cello in a band. After a few hours of play, she said, "Wii Music teaches you about rhythm, because you need to play the right rhythm for the tune to come out as you need to hear it.

'Wii Music' Screenshot 2

Girls Aloud in weight gain shocker. Wait, can't be them, they're playing instruments.

"It encourages creativity and improvisation, in that you can just decide to play in the way you want to. It doesn't tell you you're doing it wrong, which is where other musical games, like Guitar Hero and SingStar, are lacking. But you're not ever really making your own tunes up, it's pre-set."

To get a second opinion I enlisted the help of Jake, a professional composer and occasional contributor to Eurogamer. He agreed that there are serious constraints when it comes to exploring your own creativity. "There's freedom of expression, but it's not your expression," he said. "It's an expression of the music algorithm that's been programmed into the thing... It's quite primitive."

To understand what he's on about, it's important to understand how Wii Music works. As Jake explained it to me, whenever you decide to play a note, the Wii works out something that will sound okay. So if you're playing in the chord of C, and decide to throw in an extra note, it'll pick one of the notes that make up the chord (C, E or G, in this instance), and play it. That way, even if you're banging away to any old rhythm, songs might sound wonky but they'll still sound familiar.

"The problem with this is there are going to be no happy accidents, and most of music writing is happy accidents," said Jake, wearing his best composer hat. "It comes from noodling about on a keyboard and finding something that makes you go, 'Ooh, what was that?' That's never going to happen here because they're trying to make it sound nice, not like someone punching a piano. So there will be nothing new, nothing creative. It's just about doing something pretty and meaningless."

Oh dear. Perhaps, I thought, the Instrument Improv mode might cheer him up. Here, you pick an instrument and start playing whatever you like. After a little while other characters, known as Tutes, will appear on-screen and start "jamming" along with you, or so the theory goes. Surely this offers real scope for creativity?

Not really, because as we discovered, you end up following the Tutes' lead whether you want to or not. Jake tried playing a tune in 3/4 time rather than 4/4 - "Which is the timing everything in this game seems to be in" - but the Tutes just chimed in with their pre-set 4/4 pattern. Nor would they follow different tempos.

"It lets you waggle about a bit and think you're doing something by yourself. Then it just creeps in with the pre-set backing pattern and you will inevitably fall into that," said Jake. "Which is quite fun - I sort of enjoyed it, briefly. But to call it improvisation is pretty laboured. It's no better than the auto-accompaniment from a keyboard. In 1983."

It doesn't help that all the audio in Wii Music - the instruments, the backing tracks, the menu music - sounds like it is emanating from a keyboard in 1983. Clarissa agreed: "The music is really awful, and the sounds are terrible.

'Wii Music' Screenshot 3

Flower power! It's just like Woodstock! Without all the sex.

"I do have a personal hatred of that whole midi sound. I think timbre's a really important thing in encouraging people to like and enjoy music. The problem with this is the sound isn't nice; it's plasticky and fake, and a lot of the arrangements are really cheesy. So it doesn't inspire an appreciation of quality music."

Indeed, you can't help feeling they should have called it Wii Muzak, particularly when it comes to the horrendous renditions of classical pieces. The excerpt from Swan Lake, the on-screen text informs us, is "incredibly moving". Not when it's being played by midi castanets and accordion, it isn't.

However, reckoned Jake, the developers had little choice but to take the midi option. In a game like Guitar Hero, when you hit a note you hear a sample of recorded audio. That's quite a big chunk of data, but you either get it right or wrong. In Wii Music, many more permutations must be covered - which instrument you're playing, when you might hit a note and for how long.

"You'd need thousands of samples just for Twinkle Twinkle Little Star. Using midi data is an economic way of doing it," he said. "Bearing in mind the constraints of the disc, how much RAM there is and how much processing power the Wii has, they've probably done they best job they could." Even though it sounds rubbish? "Yes. Beethoven would kill himself. Except he couldn't hear it anyway."

'Wii Music' Screenshot 4

Up to four players can form a band, with the other parts played by NPCs.

So perhaps it isn't fair to criticise Wii Music for the audio quality. And besides, perhaps we're taking this all far too seriously - do kids really care about 3/4 time and proper violin sounds and musical algorithms? No, but they do care about being entertained, and they don't have the longest of attention spans.

I doubt most kids would enjoy banging away on Wii Music for longer than an hour or two. I doubt many of them would be that bothered about playing through a song six times, just to record all the parts themselves. And I seriously doubt they would want to complete all the lessons.

These are incredibly laboured. They ask you to grasp musical concepts which can be quite complex, without really explaining them. Each lesson requires you to play each part of a song, which means playing the song six times. Plus getting through the practice bit before you're allowed to play the proper song - so that's a dozen times. You can't even complete a couple of parts, then come back later to finish the lesson off; you'd have to start all over again. In other words, the lessons in Wii Music are as boring as most real music lessons.

There are always the mini-games to keep you entertained. But not for long, as there are only three of them. Mii Maestro involves waving the remote around to conduct a virtual orchestra - or in practice, to choose the speed they play at. Clarissa found it to be "a bit clunky" and "still just about rhythm, not about conducting". Jake liked it, and saw potential for a useful composing tool ("If I could record a piece of music, then control the tempo intuitively by waving my arms about, that could be genuinely useful.") I thought it was dull and rubbish.

Handbell Harmony is the closest Wii Music ever gets to being a videogame, and the most fun thing in it. Different coloured bells scroll across the screen, and you wave the appropriate controller when your colours reach the marker. It's Guitar Hero for simpletons and small children, in other words, and it's surprisingly enjoyable - especially with two or more players. Unfortunately there's only a handful of tunes to play through.

Pitch Perfect is the most educational of the mini-games. You're given tasks like picking two Miis playing the same note from a group of four, or determining which Mii is playing the wrong note. Some of these tasks are tediously easy while others are tricky even for grown-ups, and they seem to be bundled together in any-old order.

According to Clarissa there's some value here when it comes to learning about how music works, but once again, there are limitations. "This could be a good way to get thinking about high and low pitches and their relationships," she said. "But there's a strange incongruity where it uses musical jargon - words like pitch and harmony - without explaining what they mean. So a kid couldn't just play by themselves and suddenly have an understanding of those things."

Jake added, "It's quite advanced music theory, in a way - you're learning about pitch, intervals, chords, notes and stuff. What would it cost to put up a bit of blurb at the end of each task, explaining what you've just learned?"

'Wii Music' Screenshot 5

Shame you can't customise the backgrounds. They'd probably charge another fiver though.

Not very much, is the answer. Which brings us to one of the most fundamental problems with Wii Music: value for money. The full RRP is GBP 34.99. Yes, you can already find it online for GBP 29.99, but even that's pushing it.

There's an awful lot of fluff and polish here. The visuals are stylised, cute and occasionally charming in that Nintendo way (although the Tutes are a total rip-off of the Muppets). You can design your own album covers using your Miis and a limited selection of templates. You can share music videos over the internet. You can play with just remotes if you don't have enough nunchuks, and use the Balance Board as a drum pedal.

But these are all throwaway extras. They don't make up for the fact you've got a pretty limited selection of songs to choose from, many of them rubbish, and no promise of downloadable tracks in the future. Nor for the fact there are only three mini-games, and only one of them is any good. Nor for the fact that while Wii Music makes some pretense of teaching musical theory, it doesn't do so very well. In short, the novelty of banging away on different virtual instruments wears off quickly, and when it does there's not much left at the core.

'Wii Music' Screenshot 6

It's almost as good as Guitar Hero. In no way.

It's not only unclear what Wii Music is, but who it's aimed at. It's certainly not for Nintendo's platforming hardcore, though that's not a reason to condemn it. It's not challenging or sophisticated enough to appeal to adults who want to improve their musical skills. Meanwhile, some of the lessons, mini-games and concepts presented are too complex for younger children, and too tedious for older ones. So who is Wii Music for?

Perhaps Jake had the answer. "It's for middle-class parents," he argued. "It's so they can say, 'Well, we got a Wii, because at least they're moving about a bit, and we got Wii Music, because at least they're learning some musical skills.' It's misguided, and it's pointless. 'Darling, darling, why don't you play Wii Music?' 'No, because I'd rather drive a car around. Or shoot things.'" He and I are both the children of middle-class parents, and as he pointed out, aged 9, we'd probably have played Wii Music for an hour, then gone back to Super Mario Kart.

Not all videogames have to be about cars or guns, and I don't believe every piece of console software should have to be a videogame. I do think software should be entertaining, or educational, or preferably both. Wii Music isn't very entertaining and it's not very educational. There aren't enough goals for it to work as a game, and there's not enough musicality for it to work as a toy. It's not clear what it is or who it's for. One thing's for sure: it's not worth forty quid.

5 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Ellie.

About Ellie Gibson

Since joining Eurogamer in the mid 2000s, Ellie has written about subjects as diverse as the fall of Gizmondo, the rise of Hollyoaks actresses in Red Alert games and the noise a bear makes under NSFW circumstances.

Read more articles from Ellie by visiting the Ellie Gibson archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (241) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • BartonFink #1 3 years ago

    First let me say LOL.

    Score is unsurprising don't think anybody was expecting this not to be steaming turd.
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/08 @ 14:28

  • urban #2 3 years ago

    triple LOL

  • DFawkes #3 3 years ago

    Having "Others say fcuk u in ur stupid ass Nintendo Wii Music sux ballz i want teh realz next gen" in the actual review is fantastic :D

    That's not a surprising review, I never thought it'd be much of a game.

    Also, LOL quadrilogy
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/08 @ 14:29

  • sweetcheeks #4 3 years ago

    lol all you want it will sell.

    quad lol

  • Physically_Insane #5 3 years ago

    5. Pretty generous EG.

  • t8yman #6 3 years ago

    it wont sell. seriously.

    lol+1

  • MrChuckles #7 3 years ago

    I saw an advert of this on tv last night, god it looked awful, and the actors were doing their best to not look mortified at having to play such a crappy game making really really bad music.

  • BartonFink #8 3 years ago

    Review actually reads more like a 2-3. 5 was being very generous

  • menage #9 3 years ago

    Well, seeing it's a first party Nintendo game that should make a billion bucks this Christmas I'm rather surprised it sucks this much. Meh. Now for a way to tell people it does, I don't think they'll care, cause they don't know better. and little Timmy of 6 doesn't either.

  • ryohazuki1983 #10 3 years ago

    Nintendo are getting sloppy. Hopefully iy won't sell and nintendo wake up. Sales in japan were poor as well I seem to remember. So hopefully the rest of the world follows suit.

  • Xerx3s #11 3 years ago

    "First let me say LOL.
    Double LOL
    triple LOL
    quad lol"


    ULTRA, ULTRA, ULTRA, ULTRA lol.

  • Madafunkola #12 3 years ago

    So far - what I have worked out for the review and the TV advert - is that you can bash or wiggle any way you want...
    As long as it's "in time" you "win"...

  • menage #13 3 years ago

    @ ryo

    Well, everybody knows the stupid Mii based games by now already. Might be part of the problem, maybe they remember dumoping Wii Fit and Wii Play in the cupboard 7 months ago and never touching again.

  • Xerx3s #14 3 years ago

    "Review actually reads more like a 2-3. 5 was being very generous "

    The game was made by miyamoto wasn't it? + 3 points.

  • dr_faulk #15 3 years ago

    Good. Review.

  • TheSaint #16 3 years ago

    Will probably be No.1 this Christmas anyway.

  • Rayn #17 3 years ago

    Miyamoto has lost his marbles.

  • rashes #18 3 years ago

    What happened with 1up that they gave this an 'A' ? Even the 1up-yours guys were slagging that off....

  • The-Bodybuilder #19 3 years ago

    >"As long as it's "in time" you "win"... "

    Erm, no you don't.....as the erview says, you don't "win" anything. It just means.......you've........
    What does it mean? O_o

  • jonsaan #20 3 years ago

    Funniest opening I've ever read in a EG review. Nice one Ellie! :):)

    /goes back to read the rest

  • Zomoniac #21 3 years ago

    This game seems to be getting scored up across the board for no reason I can grasp. Just because I guess nobody feels they can give a Miyamoto game a 2. I watched the GameTrailers video review and I have never heard them lay into anything so badly. 5 minutes of incessant, pissed off ranting about how it was the worst game EVER (and it looked it), and still had a 6.8 or something at the end of it. Just weird.

  • MattyD #22 3 years ago

    Hopefully this little experiment will backfire and Nintendo will go back to making proper games. Though I doubt it :(

  • nickthegun #23 3 years ago

    "fcuk u in ur stupid ass Nintendo Wii Music sux ballz i want teh realz next gen"

    I actually do say that.

  • BartonFink #24 3 years ago

    I wonder if this will sell well?

  • FTM #25 3 years ago

    its all thats evil about wii gaming!!

    hopeless game with a gimmick to try and flog it to unsuspecting mugs

    but its for the family they cry!!

    it doesnt make a shit game any better though!!!!!!!!!11

  • Artemis_Matsas #26 3 years ago

    3 page review for such crap? please show some consideration in the future!

  • crispyduckman #27 3 years ago

    I just don't get it.

    Maybe it's because I'm a musician, but I don't understand the attraction of music games. You can pick up Fruity Loops for a $49 download if you really want to dabble in making music. Alternatively, don't bother and just play air guitar, flute, violin, etc. while listening to a CD - you can do that for free. It's also arguable that you'd look like less of a twat.

  • Bartacus #28 3 years ago

    La, Lah, La, LOL

  • BartonFink #29 3 years ago

    Aye it would have been so much better if they just posted a one or two liner.

    'It's shit don't buy it.
    Please tell everybody you know it's shit and not to buy it.'

    Edited by 1 at 12/11/08 @ 14:51

  • jim1975 #30 3 years ago

    looks like dog toffee

  • jonsaan #31 3 years ago

    The excerpt from Swan Lake, the on-screen text informs us, is "incredibly moving". Not when it's being played by midi castanets and accordion, it isn't. LOL

  • Feanor #32 3 years ago

    Plenty of musicians love music games, just not this one.

  • andromeda #33 3 years ago

    haha

    WIIILOL

  • Les #34 3 years ago

    Why assign three review pages to a game most people around here won't care about anyway and to make it worse have it been written by someone who can't really write?!
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/08 @ 15:22

  • andromeda #35 3 years ago

    nintendo, just admit that you've failed to innovate and go back and make a decent normal controller again and make zelda and metroids forever.
    Then you may be forgiven for the piece of gaming ass called the Wii

  • chrisjm #36 3 years ago

    the advert for this game makes me hate what nintendo have become. i could tell it would be pap, 5 seems a bit generous.

    first christmas ever i wont be buying or recieveing any nintendo games. they may be loaded now, but will the fickle current nintendo fans return en mass year on year like the fans they havent considered this year and hate more than cat aids as they currently arent as profitable.

    sadly this will sell very well.

  • JediMasterMalik #37 3 years ago

    5 does seem generous.

  • electrolite #38 3 years ago

    Will people stop going on about fucking scores? If you've read the review and it's informed you that you probably won't like this, which is clearly the case if youy think the score should be less, what does it matter which number is put at the end?

    Anyway, cracking review IMHO. It was clearly shite anyway, but very good explanation of exactly why it's shite

  • CallousB #39 3 years ago

    It's certainly too expensive for what it is. Really should be an impulse price of £19.95...they would have sold a load more..and likely would have made a load more profit from it.

    I'd resent paying £40 for this when Mario Kart+Wheel was only £35..and Endless Ocean was only £20. Charge the right price for the right games.

  • Halo.Jones #40 3 years ago

    If anything this game shows Miyamoto has lost the plot. Won't be long now before he goes the way of Ken Kuturagi.

  • siro #41 3 years ago

    Anyone before around BartonFink didn't really read the whole review before blabbering I'd figure. Oh well, that's how it works. Review scores of this game will be very mixed, no doubt.

  • Retroid #42 3 years ago

    "It's unlikely Nintendo is trying to attract Gears of War fans with this title."

    Oh, I dunno. There's a rainbow and men playing with organs (well, a piano).

    (o/

  • Darren #43 3 years ago

    Eurgh! Stuff like Wii Music and to a lesser extent Wii Fit are exactly what I don't like about the Wii at the moment. They might be innovative but they don't strike me as being particularly fun and that is surely why we play games in the first place? There's far too much emphasis on "casual" lite games and not enough "proper" Nintendo games IMO.

    I'm pining for another Zelda game right now, even a new Mario game would be nice but, no, not this guff. At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, 2008 has been a bitterly disappointing year for Wii games IMO and I've barely used mine since June. I think Super Smash Bros. Brawl was the last Wii game that interested me and there's been nothing worthwhile since. As a big fan of the N64 and GameCube it really, really hurts me to admit that, it really does. :(

  • Vanmunt #44 3 years ago

    shame reviews were not so honest of wii fit, wii sports or to be honest anything with the pre text of 'wii' in front of it.. and maybe the abomination of a console would have been resigned to the waste bin years ago.

  • electrolite #45 3 years ago

    @chrisjm

    I'm in the same boat, and I was actually quite happy with the Wii until E3 this year. The Wii had kept me thoroughly entertained with its mix of traditional games and more unusual stuff. However, they've got the balance very wrong this year. I've bought at least one Nintendo game every christmas since 1991, even in their very low periods they had something (2000-Majoras Mask, 2001-Paper Mario, 2005-Batallion Wars) (UK schedules BTW) but not this year.

  • electrolite #46 3 years ago

    @ vanmunt

    Don't be silly.

    Wii Fit's good at what it does. Wii Sports is. Heck, even Wii Play is priced right. This doesn't seem to have any redeeming features.

  • Steroyd #47 3 years ago

    sadly this will sell very well.

    It sold poorly in Japan.

    Looks like I'm sleeping soundly tonight.

  • pinkio #48 3 years ago

    "Why assign three review pages to game most people around here won't care about anyway and to make it worse have it been written by someone who can't really write?!"

    Oh, the irony!

  • Goffee #49 3 years ago

    I'll get this for my four year-old boy - and he'll love it! I don't think most of the posters here are the target market.

  • crispyduckman #50 3 years ago

    I gave my Wii away. To my mum.

    I think that says it all.

  • miiiguel #51 3 years ago

    "Why assign three review pages to game most people around here won't care about anyway and to make it worse have it been written by someone who can't really write?! "

    oh man..., this guy is really unpolite, and most of all... thinks he knows it all and is above everyone. Annoying.

  • mfnick #52 3 years ago

    It's almost as good as Guitar Hero. In no way.

    LOL!

  • PameBoy #53 3 years ago

    What a fucking disgrace. Much as I try to keep the faith with Nintendo, who got me into gaming in the first place and have always been there with the goods... this is just shabby. They're doing more to destroy their reputation as one of the finest software developers in the world than any number of bigoted internet fanboys could.

  • kangarootoo #54 3 years ago

    Good review, but I have to raise a few music related points re some of Jake's comments.


    "most of music writing is happy accidents"

    Well, not really. The best composers out there apply method to their work. That isn't to say they produce souless music, but they know how to expand on small musical cells and that informs their work. If someone got into music by way of throwing together existing loops, I can see how it might appear to be more random.


    "I do have a personal hatred of that whole midi sound"

    MIDI is not a sound! Its a method of control, and a very complex method of control at that.

    It is far too often used to control shite samples in a very basic way, which results in what people perceive to be "that midi sound", but MIDI controlled music can sound very good indeed if the samples are good and the control parameters are detailed.


    I know this a mainstream music product, but there is still value in not making incorrect (or factually suspect) statements about music in general.

    Anyway, I'm done. I hear my saucer of milk being poured.

  • Darren #55 3 years ago

    @Zomoniac - "This game seems to be getting scored up across the board for no reason I can grasp. Just because I guess nobody feels they can give a Miyamoto game a 2. I watched the GameTrailers video review and I have never heard them lay into anything so badly. 5 minutes of incessant, pissed off ranting about how it was the worst game EVER (and it looked it), and still had a 6.8 or something at the end of it. Just weird."

    I really enjoy watching GTTV's video reviews and they do a great job of summing up a game's good and bad points. But... they're absolutely f**king useless at assigning scores to many of those games.

    For example, one review I watched for an Xbox 360 game (I can't remember which, I think it was some shooter) had the reviewer heavily criticising it yet it still managed to score 7 point something. Seems to me that GameTrailers' think 7/10 is an average score, which is obviously silly because it isn't.

  • Darren #56 3 years ago

    Instead of reviewing this mediocre tat, EG, can we have reviews of COD: World at War or even Shaun White's Snowboarding. I know the former is good but I'm hoping the latter is too.

    I thank you. :)

  • Les #57 3 years ago

    ""Why assign three review pages to game most people around here won't care about anyway and to make it worse have it been written by someone who can't really write?!"

    Oh, the irony! "

    Hey, I'm not getting paid to blurp my equally worthless opinions around here... ;)

  • mingster #58 3 years ago

    FCUK YOU NINTENDOH WITH A WEE REMOTE UP UR AZZ

  • smoothpete #59 3 years ago

    Man, I want a composer hat.

  • jonsaan #60 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo.

    I think he was referring to General Midi and the assigned standard of sounds Kanga

  • Darren #61 3 years ago

    Having read the IGN review too, I find it totally ironic that a game based solely around music should have such lousy quality sound. I mean how did they mess that one up? Did someone think they were making the game for an 64 megabit cartridge or something? :o

  • Arwin #62 3 years ago

    John Davison talks about this on the latest 1up yours podcast. His kids lasted 15 minutes, then his son asked if he could play Madden ... ... ... ... ... ... !

  • speedjack #63 3 years ago

    Just as I suspected.

    Looks like the 'fcuk u in ur stupid ass' crew were right for once !

  • zuul_ #64 3 years ago

    So.... the game has me rate my performance myself...?

    LOL = LOL + 1

    And we all just love MIDI music.

    LOL = LOL + 1

  • illusiondance #65 3 years ago

    heh heh, that was quite a surprising review, what was less than surprising was the response from the embittered (self proclaimed) hardcore gamers.
    They certainly proved "lol" is the mark of the retarded.
    The real irony is that the last "lol" will be on them as nintendo continues its unabated ransacking of all regions this Christmas (yup, despite incredible recent releases like gears, little planets, fable, fallout etc) and rake in about 50% of japans GDP. The charts already look set for another wii flavoured Christmas.
    All the angry ex-nintendophiles should just either give up on their old obsession or pray to the heavens that nintendo gives up its hubris of socially aware game design and makes compromises to traditional principles of... collecting stuff and killing things.
    Stop being so angry all the time, you'll get ulcers.

    at least crispyduckman had something useful to say.

    (p.s. suddenly lots of ps3 gamers love ellie? how convenient)

  • migasUK #66 3 years ago

    I guess wii gamers don't bother about reviews and low scores...they just like to buy what I call Shit.

    LOL

  • Gallilee #67 3 years ago

    Good review, will stay away from this.
    But I already decided to after I saw this (beats any review of Wii music any day):
    [link url=http://images.encyclo pediadramatica.com/images/thumb/7/75/Wii_drums.gif/120px-Wii _drums.gif
    ]http://im ages.encyclopediadramatica.com/...[/link]

    Sums it up pretty nicely.
    Edited by 2 at 12/11/08 @ 15:41

  • loopholezero #68 3 years ago

    fcuk u in ur stupid ass?
    restecp, ellie!

  • migasUK #69 3 years ago

    @Gallilee


    Oh man that was the best stupid think i saw today....hahahahahahaah

  • Eighthours #70 3 years ago

    Brilliant review, Ellie. By far the best piece of writing I've seen on this game. Kinda damning you with faint praise, but still.

  • Tomo #71 3 years ago

    Another reason to flog my beloved Wii this Chrimble :/

    Oh Nintendo, how I'm slowly falling out of love with you... sigh.

  • andywilkie35 #72 3 years ago

    baaaaaaahahahahahahahaha I knew this was shit, can't believe this tripe even got 5!

  • Skeletor #73 3 years ago

    @Goffee
    "I'll get this for my four year-old boy - and he'll love it! I don't think most of the posters here are the target market."

    I'm sure he'll love it...but for how long?! 1 hour? Maybe 2? This whole Wii Music thing sounds like the "must have" action figures from my childhood - the novelty wore off very quickly. Of course those action figures were never even half as expensive as a Wii game...

    As somebody who's playing their "real" games for many years it's kinda frustrating to see them pumping resources into half arsed experiments like this.
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/08 @ 15:53

  • ps3owner #74 3 years ago

    WTF! 3 page review for this shit and Fallout 3 gets 2 pages only?! what's that all about

    oh an LOL +2 ;)

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #75 3 years ago

    I really hate the proliferation of "reads like an X" comments in response to EG reviews, but for a review that goes to great lengths to utterly condemn Wii Music as a waste of time and money, then score it within a point of Disater Day of Crisis (which its review implied was quite good) seems very incongruous to me.

    I thought (cringe) It read like a 1 or a zero.

  • drumbaby #76 3 years ago

    Nintendo LOL

  • FWB #77 3 years ago

    Epically epic lol.

  • Trigga_Tybalt #78 3 years ago

    biggest shock of the year? no.

  • Weezer #79 3 years ago

    Great last paragraph. Unequivocal and honest. Definitely not buying.

    (Oh, who am I kidding - I was never going to buy it...)
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/08 @ 16:06

  • Darren #80 3 years ago

    @illusiondance - Spin it how you like but while the Xbox 360 has games like Fable 2, Gears of War 2 and Banjo-Kazooie: N&B (oh how the Wii would love that game!) and the PS3 has LittleBigPlanet, MotorStorm: Pacific Rift and Resistance 2, among others like Fallout 3, Wii-only owners can rest content knowing that they have quality games to look forward to this Christmas like Wii Music and... erm... erm... :p

  • kinky_mong #81 3 years ago

    This is the best review I've read of this absolute turkey. It was a very good idea to get the opinions of trained musicians to rip this apart.

    And I'd also like to echo the sentiment that this is the first Christmas since 1991 that I will not be receiving a Nintendo game. Actually that might be a lie because I'm sure there's a period around 2000 or 2001 where I went off of computer games and got decks for Christmas but lets gloss over that for the purpose of a bold statement.

  • Triggerhappytel #82 3 years ago

    This is an odd review. After a superb opening it's written as though its below average in every way (a 4 at very most) and still gets 5.

    Furthermore, why didn't the review just get passed to Jake, since he comments so much here? No offence Ellie, but I don't really want to read the review with quotes from two people who are obviously considered more knowledgeable in this field – it makes it read more like an interview.

    I genuinely hope it sells poorly worldwide and Nintendo realise that the casual gamer is fickle and they need their core audience more than they realise.

    EDIT - also, I don't think there are any excuses for producing poor sound quality in a game such as this. If the storage memory is too small then that's Nintendo's fault, and they shouldn't be excused over it. It seems like a glaring failing in a music game, for fuck's sake.
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/08 @ 16:16

  • Kiigan #83 3 years ago

    To the tune of Beethoven's 5th:

    Lol lol lol LOOOL

    Lol lol lol LOOOL

  • Byzanite #84 3 years ago

    5! Whoa, was expecting a bottom dwelling 2 at most.

  • kangarootoo #85 3 years ago

    "It was a very good idea to get the opinions of trained musicians to rip this apart."

    I actually think that balance is important in that respext, and I didn't see any quotes from non-musician sources. This game is clearly not aimed at musicians, and whilst their comments on the theory it attempts to convey is valuable, it might have also been useful to get the opinions of people who can't play a note.

    The game seems confused as to whether its job is to teach any amount of musicality, or cover up holes in that knowledge and allow anybody at all to have fun. I guess the issue is that it didn't do either job particularly well, but then it had set itself a steep challenge as games based on making music always rely on replacing learned ability with faked novelty (which by its very nature is shirt lasting).

    Sounds like there are some nice ideas in there, but it should never have been built up into a full priced title.

  • kangarootoo #86 3 years ago

    "it will score crap (as it did here) but sell well, because the "casuals" are already brainwashed in to brain training et all."

    It may well sell well, but talk of "casuals" is just elitist nonsense. Its one step away from referring to people as "real gamers", which is just as ridiculous.

  • peterfll #87 3 years ago

    How did Wii Play score?

    How well did Wii Play sell?

  • CunningLinguist #88 3 years ago

    3 page review?

  • FooAtari #89 3 years ago

    This is why I don't like the Wii. Why I sold mine. I've never been a huge fan, but always respected the effort they seemed to make and the quality games the took time to develop.

    Like the hugely popular PS2 there is an absolute shed load of crap games, some I've never heard of until I see them on the shop shelf. This I expected. Unlike the PS2 (I'm comparing the Wii to the PS2 because it sold in huge numbers also) it has only a handful of good games. It seem to me that for the most part third party developers can't be arsed and Nintedo are more than happy to abandon the fans that have kept them afloat through the N64 and GameCube years.

    I know, their a business, they are out to make money, but that doesn't mean releasing shite like this. I'm really quite surprised this has come from the same developer that game us Mario, Zelda and Samus. They only had one intention with this game, and it wasn't producing a quality product. They know their new market very well I guess.

  • cyber_nicco #90 3 years ago

    I can probably think of 50 games that scored worse on EG that I'd rather play. Actually, just add up ALL the games that scored worse, and that would be the number...

  • smelly #91 3 years ago

    sheesh .. another wii thread full of 360 loving retards telling everyone that they sold their wii to get something grown up or something equally dumb based on one game... who'd have thunk it?

    This review pretty much sums up my distaste for modern reviews though - as it completely misses the point. Yes the hardcore gears of war loving market will hate it, but then - they're bound to hate anything which isnt a carbon copy dull repetitive shooter with pretty visuals.

    This is a game for 6 year olds to make noise with, and I have LOTS of friends whose kids LOVE it (my nephew does too!).

    Problem is, this game is being judged from a "grown up" perspective by someone who probably likes lots of "normal" games. And is totally missing the point. You dont see movie reviews doing this, where a hard core action fan is given the task of reviewing the latest "barbie" (or whatever) movie do you?

    Thus proving yet again that games journalism needs to "grow up" (erm, pun intended). The problem with websites as this, is that they're sites created by fanboys for fanboys. The people who make them usually have no journalistic training - all they are, are fanboys of games. And of course that means they're gonna be fanboys of certain genres too.

    Sure in the case of eurogamer, taking into account their average audience - this review is probably pretty much spot on. But some parent might read this and decide not to get it for their kid because of that - and that'd be a shame as i can gaurantee their kid would love it. And from a kids point of view, it's still not perfect, but it's a good 7 or 8 score.

    I dunno what to suggest to improve things. But it seems that if you're a "hardcore" (i.e. pretty visuals, good story, no gameplay) shooter, the reviewer starts with a 10 score in mind (before actually playing), and subtracts if they find anything wrong. A kids game starts with a 6 in mind before playing, and gets adjusted according to whether there's good or bad points.

    So we REALLY need to come up with a better way of doing things

    Rant over

    Cue lots of 360 hugging twats jumping in, missing the point of what i've said and calling me a "nintendo appologist" or something equally moronic.
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/08 @ 16:51

  • FooAtari #92 3 years ago

    It may well sell well, but talk of "casuals" is just elitist nonsense. Its one step away from referring to people as "real gamers", which is just as ridiculous.

    There is a difference though. Like the difference between someone that only listens to chart music or the huge bands that fill stadiums, and someone that had a huge collectiono of music, most of which many people havent heared of and goes to gigs every weekend.

    Or between someone that only goes to see blockbuster movies and someone else that goes to the small independant cinema to see the latest independant movie or can name that 10 films that any actor was in.

    The music and movie buffs I guess you could call them. The same can be said for games, although perhaps not in the way most people think. A game like Halo or Gears of War could also be seen as a casual game.
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/08 @ 16:54

  • smelly #93 3 years ago

    "nd someone that had a huge collectiono of music, most of which many people havent heared of and goes to gigs every weekend. "


    So music is only good if it comes from a band that no-ones heard of? I presume that if that band becomes popular - you immediately hate said band too yeah?

  • jonsaan #94 3 years ago

    It's not the first time nintendo have released rubbish. They did it with the N64 too. We still all bought the Wii.

  • smelly #95 3 years ago

    But music is an interesting one too.. You wouldnt get an indie music lover to review the latest britney spears (or insert latest pop act here ) album would you?

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #96 3 years ago

    But music is an interesting one too.. You wouldnt get an indie music lover to review the latest britney spears (or insert latest pop act here ) album would you?

    Indeed, and if you were a gaming web site you might have someone <a href ="http://www.eurogamer.net /archive.php?type=review&sort=reversechrono&platform=&author =100">who usually reviews games in a similar genre</a> to review something like Wii Music.

  • andromeda #97 3 years ago

    "It's not the first time nintendo have released rubbish. They did it with the N64 too. We still all bought the Wii."

    some of us didn't, jonsaan

  • Darren #98 3 years ago

    @smelly - Well I'm someone who owns a Wii as well as an Xbox 360 and PS3 but I'm not afraid to voice my criticisms of the Wii and Nintendo when I feel they deserve it.

    And, IMO, Nintendo deserves criticism for focusing almost solely on the casual market and totally ignoring those people, the hardcore fans, that helped make them a success in the first place. As others have said also, this will be the first Christmas I won't be buying a single game for my Wii and that is deeply disappointing. If I didn't care then I wouldn't be commenting.

    Wii Music might be a great game for 6 year olds as you put it but where are the games for the older gamers like me then? Having games for young children isn't a bad thing at all but it is if that's the only first-party game on offer this Christmas!!! Where have all the Nintendo classics gone...? They seem to have dried up around June... :?
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/08 @ 17:03

  • smelly #99 3 years ago

    "the hardcore fans, that helped make them a success in the first place"

    (looks at cube sales figures)

    how?

  • smelly #100 3 years ago

    "Where have all the Nintendo classics gone...? They seem to have dried up around June... :?"

    If you're talking about 1st party nintendo games.. Nintendo have published more higher scoring better selling games in the last 12 months than any other publisher.

    So to say they're "ignoring" the hardcore is ridiculous.

    How many 1st party games have sony or microsoft released exactly? The only 1st party game microsoft have released recently (to my knowledge) is banjo kazoiee (no idea how to spell it, cant be arsed to check) - a kids game

  • anomagnus #101 3 years ago

    what type of review was this

    i've a head ache

    i just wanted over the top theatrics, and mad videos

    now i see students being involved, and all sorts of crazy shit....

    bring back Dominic diamond

  • smelly #102 3 years ago

    "
    Indeed, and if you were a gaming web site you might have someone who usually reviews games in a similar genre to review something like Wii Music. "


    Oh you're Soooo right.. yes.. she's a GIRL.. that means she's PERFECT for reviewing games aimed at kids... sigh...

  • chrisjm #103 3 years ago

    'and I have LOTS of friends whose kids LOVE it (my nephew does too!). '

    but its not out yet, i find it hard to believe they all have it early imported wii music to play on an imported wii (remember these are casual users) and have played it enough for this to contain any truth.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #104 3 years ago

    I think you'll find that Fable 2, created by Microsoft-owned Lionhead, got 10/10 here.

  • anomagnus #105 3 years ago

    i've said this before

    the wii is not a games console. its a toy.

    its a toy, that can, from time to time, play video games, but for the most part is nothing more something to wiggle your nuchunk at

  • smelly #106 3 years ago

    Just to clarify : I dont intend to buy this game myself. And my 360 is currently getting more use than my wii (I'm still addicted to skate 1 year later, and will buy the new one in january - also about to get mirrors edge).

  • chrisjm #107 3 years ago

    '(looks at cube sales figures)

    how? '

    they made lots of ££ from it.
    no it didnt sell as well as they had hoped.

  • smelly #108 3 years ago

    "'ve said this before

    the wii is not a games console. its a toy."


    I'm sorry to break it to you.. but all games consoles are toys..

    When you're running around on screen in your latest shooter thinking you're all grown up.. all you're really doing is playing with a fake gun. You may as well be running around with a piece of plastic shouting "dakka DAKKA DAKKA!" at other kids doing the same to you.

    Playing games.. is *shock* playing with toys.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #109 3 years ago

    Oh you're Soooo right.. yes.. she's a GIRL.. that means she's PERFECT for reviewing games aimed at kids... sigh...

    Did you not actually read the list of reviews I linked to? Ellie is probably the internet's most experienced reviewer of games aimed at the casual market. I think it not incongrouus that we get an opinion of Wii Music from the same person who scored Wii Fit an 8.

  • smelly #110 3 years ago

    "they made lots of ££ from it.
    no it didnt sell as well as they had hoped. "

    So you're saying - appealing soley to the hardcore market didnt help them, and they ended up with a machine which sold about as many units as the xbox did?

    So perhaps maybe the hardcore DIDNT put them where they are today? But the mainstream did?

    Just like in he nes era when 1/3rd of american households had a nintendo.. i dont think they were all "hardcore" gamers - do you? Mind you, nowadays "hardcore" just means "violent sweary carbon copy game with guns designed to appeal to teenagers who think that makes them look grown up"

  • smelly #111 3 years ago

    "Ellie is probably the internet's most experienced reviewer of games aimed at the casual market."

    What a load of garbage.. and it doesnt make her 6 years old either does it?

  • smelly #112 3 years ago

    *sigh*

    Going around in circles - should know better than to try to disagree with the "MAINSTREAM" gamers on here.

    Wii is crap.. WiiLol... A grown up is more than perfect to review a game for kids.. WiiLol..

    Wii is a toy, wii is for kids.. WiiLol...

    360's arent toys, they're for grown up teenagers who like to think they're grown up and not playing with a toy.

    WiiLol


    (it's like being in a room full of big brother lovers and trying to educate them about, erm, anything)

  • kinky_mong #113 3 years ago

    @ Smelly

    How many 1st party games have sony or microsoft released exactly? The only 1st party game microsoft have released recently (to my knowledge) is banjo kazoiee (no idea how to spell it, cant be arsed to check) - a kids game

    Erm... that's not a first party game. Rare made it. I know as a Nintendo fanboy you refuse to accept they exist since they left Nintendo's loving arms but they deserve the credit for that middling game. But if you're going to class games that are part of Microsoft Studios as 1st Party then in the last month alone they've released Gears 2 & Fable 2.

    I dunno what to suggest to improve things. But it seems that if you're a "hardcore" (i.e. pretty visuals, good story, no gameplay) shooter, the reviewer starts with a 10 score in mind (before actually playing), and subtracts if they find anything wrong.

    Accusing shooters of having no gameplay in a Wii Music thread made me chuckle.
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/08 @ 17:24

  • smelly #114 3 years ago

    Its just dawned on me however - the same kids who are saying "wii is for kids" & "wii is a toy" - Are probably the EXACT same kids who have a plastic guitar hero fake plastic guitar toy under their tv.

  • smelly #115 3 years ago

    "Accusing shooters of having no gameplay in a Wii Music thread made me chuckle. "

    Yes you're right.. that should have read "carbon copy gameplay of all the other shooters - play one, play them all"

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #116 3 years ago

    What a load of garbage.. and it doesnt make her 6 years old either does it?

    Oh, I get it. You're saying that only people predisposed to like something should review it, and everything should get 10/10?

    Good luck with persuading six year olds to submit 1500 words of copy for your website. I wonder if they'll win Ellie's online writers award next year.

  • sneetch #117 3 years ago

    @smelly

    No, I don't think so. I don't believe Eurogamers target audience is "family" or "kids" or even "casual" I think it's pretty obvious that Eurogamer's target is the "core" market, therefore it's entirely appropriate that they review games with that target audience in mind. Nintendo may consider this a core title (at least I half-remember Cammie Dunaway encouraging us to check it out in an E3 interview where the interviewer asked where the core games were) but for teens and adults Eurogamer think this is a 5.

    If you want a site that reviews games with kids or family in mind then they must exist, it's just not Eurogamer. It is not a failing with this site it's just unreasonable expectations on your part. That said, a Eurogamer spin-off site that reviews these games with younger players in mind would probably be a good idea.

    While we're at it; glad to see you wheel out your tired old "if you don't like this you're only interested in grey and brown shooters" strawman for anyone who doesn't fall head over heals in love with this with. That's a bit lazy, to be honest, and is about as applicable as the flip-side argument that if it doesn't look like a rainbow on acid or it contains an actual game then you're not interested in it.

    Both assertions are equally bullshit.

  • gieltjegitaar #118 3 years ago

    I was looking forward to this game (love playing these Mii games with my brother and sister) but looks like I'll give it a miss after that review. Oh well, gonna buy Rayman Raving Rabbids 3 instead :)

  • smelly #119 3 years ago

    sigh.. so many replies.. right.. one at a time:

    @kinky_mong:

    I was replying to the assertion that nintendo have stopped making games for the "hardcore", and that they're only focusing on kids.

    I pointed out that nintendo 1st party have published more higher scoring, better selling "hardcore" games than sony and microsoft.

    And you reply by telling me microsoft dont make 1st party games.

    Erm.. how does that disprove my point?



    @sneetch: "herefore it's entirely appropriate that they review games with that target audience in mind. "

    I agree.. But then who IS reviewing games like this with the INTENDED target audience in mind? And surely it's better for a site like this whose target audience is clearly not the same target audience as this game to not review the game at all? For example you wouldnt see a punk music website reviewing the latest westlife (yes i'm out of touch with pop) album would you? Because its not their demographic.

    And NO i dont expect this game to get a 10. I dont intend to buy it or play it (im not the target audience - im sure it'll bore me senseless as much as halo3 did - but then im not the target audience for that either), and so i dont know what score it should get. Im just pointing out the idiocy of a grown up reviewing a game for kids without watching a kid play it to see if a kid would like it or not. Its like getting me to review a shooting game... I certainly wouldnt give halo3 any where NEAR a 5 out of 10 (for example)

    I have LOADS more to say on the subject but:

    a) I cant be arsed as i'm talking to a load of deaf ears.
    b Im late for work


  • Muddtallica #120 3 years ago

    I've not read any of the other comments in this thread, nor do I intend to, because I suspect they will largely compose of fanboys beating each other about the head. I really just wanted to congratulate Ellie on a very well-written and informative review. Far too many of the write-ups I've read of this game have felt purely like subjective screeds or blog posts; by featuring extensive analysis from music experts, this one feels like a rational, objective breakdown that went a long way to answering many of the questions I had about the intent and execution of the game's concepts. Cheers, EG! :)

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #121 3 years ago

    For example you wouldnt see a punk music website reviewing the latest westlife (yes i'm out of touch with pop) album would you? Because its not their demographic.

    Aha! But you certainly would expect a punk music website to review Marky Ramone's new album of Westlife covers. It might not be intended for their demographic but it is within their sphere of interest.

    I believe that may of eurogamers' wii owning readers were hoping against hope that Miyamoto's influence might have meant that Wii music was something more than it appeared to be, and was actually really good fun, or of genuine usefulness (like Wii Fit). But it wasn't, and we deserved to be told, rather than have the matter swept under the carpet.

  • gaselite #122 3 years ago

    smelly in response to your lengthy review of the review, I feel this one concluding paragraph that you may have missed summed up Ellie's issues with Wii Music succinctly and well:

    "Not all videogames have to be about cars or guns, and I don't believe every piece of console software should have to be a videogame. I do think software should be entertaining, or educational, or preferably both. Wii Music isn't very entertaining and it's not very educational. There aren't enough goals for it to work as a game, and there's not enough musicality for it to work as a toy. It's not clear what it is or who it's for. One thing's for sure: it's not worth forty quid."

    That's not missing the point at all, that strikes me as a fair appraisal. They may be Ellie's issues, but they're issues that a lot of EG readers will understand, relate to, and base purchase decisions around (either for themselves or young relatives), and I think it would be entirely fair to do so.

    That said, even mitigating for any absence of that paragraph, the reason it's being judged from a 'grown up' perspective is because EG is a website for 'grown ups', it doesn't cater to children, as you rightly pointed out.

    That said, it's a moot point because ellie does try to review it regarding its worth as a program for children, as you can see in that paragraph I quoted, and she thinks it has shortcomings. That's no worse - indeed it's much better - than the conceit that you somehow ARE able to see this from a kids point of view, and guarantee that a parent's young kids might love it. Frankly I think the childhood me would be bored shitless by something like this. Maybe not, though. Or maybe I would but after an hour of vague smiling and a warm feeling of pleasantness subsided.

    Incidentally, and this is a topic for another day: If you were hinting at this, and I apologise if you weren't, it does not, and should not require 'journalistic training' to be a games journalist. I think it's fair to say that formalised 'journalistic training' deals with a type of journalism that is somewhat more demanding (probably a bad word but still) than opinion-based specialised forms of journalism such as this (or film reviewing, theatre reviewing etc and so on, which for the record is a form of journalism I have a great deal of time and respect for). An arts degree would instead perhaps be the most appropriate qualification for jobs such as that (arguably still an arts degree is also a more than adequate form of training for more news-based journalism but again this is off topic).

    I agree that games journalism has a lot of room for improvement in general, mostly in terms of writing quality and the need to find more interesting things to say, but I see no real problem with this review. I also think your suggested formula for how EG writers come up with their review scores is a bit patronising at best, at least in terms of EG reviews.

  • sneetch #123 3 years ago

    @smelly
    "a) I cant be arsed as i'm talking to a load of deaf ears.
    b Im late for work"

    On a)
    No, not deaf ears. Sure some people will never change their minds at all but others are more interested in debate and quite open to convincing. However, in my loooong years on this wonderful internet of ours I've come to the conclusion that a lot of people won't actually read what's been written, rather they read what they want to see, inserting tone and "implications" into whatever it is so that it will back up their opinions so they can then throw their hands up and roll their eyes at the "dense" people they're dealing with. From your posts I get a sense that you have given up a long time ago hence your repeated assertions that we're all FPS lovers who aren't interested in novel or original games any more and just want another grey and brown blah blah blah despite the fact that that is just a ludicrous and indefensible load of old bollox.

    As for who should be reviewing this, I think you are right, kids are the appropriate ones to review a kids game so I think an ideal review process for a kids game (but not for this site) would be an attempt to capture and transcribe the experience children have with this.

    That said, at the end of the day this is a game and Eurogamer reviews games, it's their "demographic" so to speak, it's entirely appropriate for them to review this one. To continue your analogy they're not a punk magazine they're a music magazine.

    On b)
    Screw 'em, the fate of the world depends on this. ;)

  • DanWhitehead #124 3 years ago

    "There is a difference though. Like the difference between someone that only listens to chart music or the huge bands that fill stadiums, and someone that had a huge collectiono of music, most of which many people havent heared of and goes to gigs every weekend.

    Or between someone that only goes to see blockbuster movies and someone else that goes to the small independant cinema to see the latest independant movie or can name that 10 films that any actor was in."

    The problem with this comparison is that it positions "hardcore" fans as the ones who seek out the unusual, the obscure and the innovative and the "casual" fans as the ones who simply favour the big, obvious mainstream options. In music and movies, that's true. In games, the dynamic is reversed.

    Hardcore gamers gravitate towards long-running franchises that generally feature lots of shooting. They certainly don't favour independent games, or offbeat ideas. I don't think, for instance, you could make the argument that Gears of War 2 is the equivalent of a limited release indie movie or an up-coming unsigned band. While most refuse to accept this, the most innovative or unusual games are generally the ones that fall into the "casual" bracket - from The Sims to LittleBigPlanet. Hardcore games tend to have impressive production values but fairly stagnant ideas.

  • Garulon #125 3 years ago

    "Going around in circles - should know better than to try to disagree with the "MAINSTREAM" gamers on here. "

    I'm not sure everyone's got a problem with Wii music being "for casuals", one of my fave games is Rock Band and that's as casual as anything, I think quite a few people have a problem with Wii music being absolute fucking dogshit, and knowing it's going to outsell genius stuff like LBP not because of any intrinsic merit, but because N know how to exploit their user base. Anyone thinking N give a monkeys about cultivating gaming in general has just had their illusions shattered with this cynical cash-in.

  • shotgun44 #126 3 years ago

    I fucking hate the wii. With a burning passion.

  • miiiguel #127 3 years ago

    Btw, I don't understand that "age segregation" thing (on the video-game products), I can have fun with a kids game, when it is a good product - Viva Piñata, for example. I think it's wrong to say "nevermind the flaws, it's ok, it's for a kid, can be rubish...". Like I really enjoy a good (pre-teen) animated movie , like "Finding Nemo".

  • smelly #128 3 years ago

    @sneetch: THANK YOU! For wanting a decent discussion on this.

    - I'll reply back to you during my lunch break :-)

  • miiiguel #129 3 years ago

    Everybody say they want to be indie
    Everyone say they want to be hardcore
    ...

    "Everybody wants to be Hollywood,
    The fame, the vanity, the glitz, the stories"

  • smelly #130 3 years ago

    >"nevermind the flaws, it's ok, it's for a kid, can be rubish..."

    But being "rubbish" is subjective.. Case in point.. I think both halo 3 and bioshock are "rubbish" - millions of people disagree.

    Their opinion is no more right or wrong than mine though

  • miiiguel #131 3 years ago

    I guess..., any qualitative adjective is subjective. But you said the review should indulge (?) its flaws because its target are kids (I could have read it wrong though...).

    [funny mode]
    Regarding Halo 3 being rubish..., well, that's not subjective at all, that's plain wrong, because Master Chief is the video game icon of th XXI century. He's a god with a helmet. ;)
    And Bioshock is digital poetry.
    [/funny mode]
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/08 @ 18:36

  • SharksInYourMouth #132 3 years ago

    Basically, they made a bunch of great games for the Gamecube which didn't sell. So now you can't really blame them for making a load of '' games '' in order to make insane profits.

    Meh, I'm still keeping my wii though. I know there are some third parties out there who can take advantage of what the console has to offer ( Madworld and No More Heroes 2 sound appealing) and Nintendo is bound to churn out something good every now and then. Hopefully F-Zero, Pikmin and something new, original and fun *waits for people to snigger*. >_>

    And although I also hold disdain for the tedious wii hate, I wouldn't go as far as to say that the only games being churned out for 360 are dull and lifeless and contain no gameplay. I'd say gameplay is their main selling point, but most of them tend to lack originality or the ability to move the player in anywa emotionally or mentally. No real '' wow '' moments. Don't dismiss the wii but don't dismiss the 360 either.

    I don't see why people are laughing so much either, I seem to recall everyone loving Wii Sports when it first came out despite not being that good either. ( still better than wii music but you see my point) I guess I personally would like it if Nintendo changed their current image a bit, maybe focused 35% of their adverts on '' hardcore '' nintendo fans. But mainly because seeing a cheesy family playing Mario Kart, with dad laughing that something had eaten him as if he didn't know what was going on tears me apart and gives me sleepless nights.
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/08 @ 18:47

  • smelly #133 3 years ago

    @DanWhitehead: I agree to an extent.

    I dont see the "hardcore" shooter fan as anything other than the mainstream casual gamer he so desperately is trying not to be.

    But to carry on the music analogy - the shooter fan is into mainstream pop/rock music which has been spoon fed him. However he isnt into the ultra casual gaming (cooking mamma for example) which is more aimed towards the young bubble gum pop market (the sclubs of this world .. yes im aware im out of date with pop music).

    The "hardcore" elitist snob gamer (the "indie music" fan who seeks out obscure bands) is the gamer who bought okami/psychonauts

  • smelly #134 3 years ago

    "nd Nintendo is bound to churn out something good every now and then."

    they're only 1 company at the end of the day.. and something like mario or zelda takes YEARS to make and many many many people to do it.

    So it's understandable they're not releasing a new zelda/mario every month or something isnt it? ISNT IT?!?!?

  • miiiguel #135 3 years ago

    "mainstream casual gamer he so desperately is trying not to be"
    Not me..., I'm very confortable with the mainstream crowd. I've had my "cultural revolution". I can now appreciate mainstream with no complexes whatsoever.

    You say I'm not underground
    I'm rich, I'm famous, I'm vanish, I'm glitz
    I'm the story, I'm the star you know,
    Like the Big Dipper

  • Les #136 3 years ago

    "While most refuse to accept this, the most innovative or unusual games are generally the ones that fall into the "casual" bracket - from The Sims to LittleBigPlanet. Hardcore games tend to have impressive production values but fairly stagnant ideas."

    +1

    Why can't you guys make these kind of points in the articles themselves but keep them reserved for the comments section?

    No matter how many beardy 30plus-year olds try to deny it, gaming is still predominantly an industry for male kids. It's apparent in the type of games that reach store shelves and in the fact that 95% of the big titles are still released during the holiday season amongst others.

  • makeamazing #137 3 years ago

    I would say that Wii Fit was a fun but serious attempt at getting excercise.Though it didnt work on many levels, it still can be fun and make people think about their weight/excercise.

    The main problem with Wii Music as i see it is that it achieves nothing useful. I know smelly has said its aimed at young kids, well fair enough... but then why do all the adverts feature in most cases adults playing the instruments? I think Nins marketting approach is lets get everyone to buy it rather than say its aimed at kids. But anyway.

    The thing is Nintendo seem to have got lazy, what could have been an excellent way to teach people to learn basic music in a fun way (like getting people to excercise in a fun way), is just move/wave/waggle your arms about. I purchased a Wii because i felt that Nintendo had a real chance of bringing real feel to gaming - like your taking part... but they have sadly fell apart as the hardware and software is becoming more inadequate and cheap looking :(.

  • canIdoyabombsforya #138 3 years ago

    So are we being forced to buy this or somethig?

  • makeamazing #139 3 years ago

    Hopefully no one buys it... is the general feel from this topic :D

  • DjFlex52 #140 3 years ago

    So it's understandable they're not releasing a new zelda/mario every month or something isnt it? ISNT IT?!?!?

    @smelly

    So developing/releasing a new IP this generation is out of the question for Nintento? Do they have to only release zelda/mario/metroid etc. games?

    Both Sony & MS have released new IP's for their new game systems. And 3rd party developers have made new successful IPs like LBP, Dead Space, Assassin's Creed, Bioshock, Uncharted, Resistance, GeOW, Mass Effect, etc. What 3rd party devs are making for the Wii aren't the equivalent (ie No More Heroes, Zack & Wiki & Boom Blox) to the big productions made for Sony & MS.

  • smelly #141 3 years ago

    >I know smelly has said its aimed at young kids

    Just the way i see it thats all.

    I personally have no intention of buying it - but i know a lot of kids of friends of mine who enjoy it.

  • schoozzzmmii #142 3 years ago

    How the hell this managed 5/10 I have no idea. Have lost pretty much all faith in Nintendo at the moment. Not that they'll care, but I do hope they start making some old fashioned videogames at some point, all this lifestyle software is getting a bit much.

  • gingerlink #143 3 years ago

    As I've said since I found out how the stuff worked:

    Good idea, poorly implemented

  • makeamazing #144 3 years ago

    Im sure my kids would find it fun for 5 minutes, but because they cant learn anything from it, they will just move onto something else.

  • AOFanboi #145 3 years ago

    <em>This is a game for 6 year olds to make noise with, and I have LOTS of friends whose kids LOVE it (my nephew does too!).</em>

    So? Lots of kids love Candyland as a timesink, but it sucks as a board game. This site is NOT geared at six year olds in case you thought it was. I mean, every review could be made worthless by saying "this game is a 10/10 for someone who loves it" but then we might as well drop the scores.

    Hey, good idea.

  • captainrentboy #146 3 years ago

    smelly, what the hell are you doing man? You've typed A LOT, but do you honestly think any of the stuff you wrote will change anyone's opinion of this utter shite?
    This game has looked and sounded shitty from the very start, it's no surprise to see it only get a 5/10. (And from how the review is worded, even that sounds generous)
    So what if it's solely aimed at kids (I don't think it is btw, if anything surely Nintendo's aim is to get a big slice of Guitar Hero pie), that doesn't mean it has to be utter crap for us grown ups.
    It's crap Smelly, end of.
    I mean, midi sound nowadays? WTF?

    The case is nice though....

  • adman123 #147 3 years ago

    seriously is such a waste of time


  • smelly #148 3 years ago

    >"this game is a 10/10 for someone who loves it"

    Like the eurogamer bioshock review you mean?


    >smelly, what the hell are you doing man? You've typed A LOT, but do you honestly think any of the stuff you wrote will change anyone's opinion of this utter shite?


    Nope.. But i'm not trying to change opinions.. As i've stated numerous times i dont want this product and have no intention of buying it. But that wasnt my argument and never was. If you read what i said, you'd understand that.

    I have 2 points, one is with how games like this are reviewed. The other is in answer to all the fankids who keep saying nintendo dont make hardcore games.. Which is nonsense.
    Edited by 2 at 12/11/08 @ 19:32

  • smelly #149 3 years ago

    >they created a console that no developers take seriously.

    Well that's obviously nonsense to start with.

  • DanWhitehead #150 3 years ago

    >"this game is a 10/10 for someone who loves it"

    Like the eurogamer bioshock review you mean?

    The argument that scores are meaningless because everyone has different taste doesn't really hold water. A "good game" is not simply a subjective opinion, though. Whether you personally enjoy it or not, there are enough quantifiable traits that BioShock displays to mark it out as a good game, even a great one. You may not have liked it, but that doesn't make it "rubbish".

    This is a distinction a lot of gamers still seem to struggle with, and it's why there are so many arguments about scores. Games are still relatively young as an artform though, so we're still working towards the critical language to evaluate them. Film, on the other hand, is more established and so there are tangible and compelling elements that can be said go together to make "good" films. Some are technical, some are artistic, but there's an accepted critical framework behind professional film criticism that comes from the study of a well developed artform. Games will get there, sooner rather than later, but it's a work in progress.

    In other words, it's perfectly OK to play a 10/10 game and not enjoy it, and it's perfectly OK to play a 5/10 game and really enjoy it, just so long as you don't make the mistake of assuming that your subjective level of enjoyment somehow changes the objective qualities of the game, or that your differing opinion makes the reviewer wrong.

  • SteveB #151 3 years ago

    I do hope when Sony and MS bring out their inevitable Wii style motion controllers they do more with it than Nintendo have.

    Nintendo strip away one of the biggest barriers to entry for ‘new’ gamers, by simplifying the means of interacting with the game, but then apply to the lowest denominator, ‘whack a mole’ type games.

    Simplified, frothy, nonsense that is entertaining for a couple of hours and then is put away in the cupboard along side their congealed sandwich toaster never to be used again.

  • UncleLou #152 3 years ago

    What a great review. Expected result, sadly.

    And I see smelly has outdone himself today:

    1. Not played the game;
    2. not read the review,
    3. and mentioned Bioshock.

    Like a desperate defense robot.

  • FooAtari #153 3 years ago

    The problem with this comparison is that it positions "hardcore" fans as the ones who seek out the unusual, the obscure and the innovative and the "casual" fans as the ones who simply favour the big, obvious mainstream options. In music and movies, that's true. In games, the dynamic is reversed.

    Hardcore gamers gravitate towards long-running franchises that generally feature lots of shooting. They certainly don't favour independent games, or offbeat ideas. I don't think, for instance, you could make the argument that Gears of War 2 is the equivalent of a limited release indie movie or an up-coming unsigned band. While most refuse to accept this, the most innovative or unusual games are generally the ones that fall into the "casual" bracket - from The Sims to LittleBigPlanet. Hardcore games tend to have impressive production values but fairly stagnant ideas.

    I did say that games like Gears of War or Halo (not picking on them, just the two that came to mind first) could be (and are imo) casual. They are played by people who never visit games sites, they probably get their games reviews from The Sun, or somwhere else equally useless, if they ever read reviews at all. Any of the huge blockbuster games, while often really good, like many blockbuster movies, are still pretty casual imo. I would not consider someone to be "hardcore" simply because they play Gears or Ridge Racer. They may be seen as "core" gamers, but I don't think core = hardcore

    It's not an easy thing to define really. I think it basically depends how heavy you interest is in a particular hobby/subject.
    Edited by 2 at 12/11/08 @ 20:21

  • DanWhitehead #154 3 years ago

    I did say that games like Gears of War or Halo (not picking on them, just the two that came to mind first) could be (and are imo) casual.

    I completely agree, and it's why trying to define "hardcore" versus "casual" by the content of the games is a fruitless exercise.

  • FooAtari #155 3 years ago

    I don't get this who "games for kids" attitude. When I was growing up I played games like Elite, Sonic, Streets of Rage, Doom, games that are still playable and enjoyable now. They were good games then and are good now.

    So when did kids start needing piss easy, shit games? I'm not suggesting they play stuff like CoD5 or GoW but not sure when kids games started to equal shit games. Being aimed at kids is not an excuse for it being crap.

  • DjFlex52 #156 3 years ago

    So when did kids start needing piss easy, shit games? I'm not suggesting they play stuff like CoD5 or GoW but not sure when kids games started to equal shit games. Being aimed at kids is not an excuse for it being crap.

    +1 @FooAtari
    ++1 @DanWhitehead's next to last post

    @smelly

    The game isn't shit because it's on Nintendo. It would be shit on the 360 & PS3 too. The quality bar set for music games has been elevated twofold and just like Konami's Rock Revolution, Wii Music is a huge step backwards.
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/08 @ 20:38

  • J.C #157 3 years ago

    Fucking sick of the wii now tbh. the missus has spent a bastard fortune on the thing, and its money that could have been spent on proper games (360) she's playing my sims kingdom atm. and guess what? EA still cant get a decent fucking frame rate running. just like the last one.

    Fucking shit.

  • ST.. #158 3 years ago

    And so it begins......

  • dudefella #159 3 years ago

    Fucking. Shambles.

    The above statement can be interpreted however you see fit. About this game, about the Wii's software library... Except about Ellie and her review, of course, both are superb.

  • FooAtari #160 3 years ago

    The game isn't shit because it's on Nintendo. It would be shit on the 360 & PS3 too. The quality bar set for music games has been elevated twofold and just like Konami's Rock Revolution, Wii Music is a huge step backwards.

    True. Wii Music is just a crap game regardless of format and target audieance


    I completely agree, and it's why trying to define "hardcore" versus "casual" by the content of the games is a fruitless exercise.

    True, but I still feel there is a difference.

    Although I'm not sure what relevance it has here to be honest. Like I said above it still a poor game.
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/08 @ 21:25

  • smelly #161 3 years ago

    >The game isn't shit because it's on Nintendo. It would be shit on the 360 & PS3 too.

    I agree.. so why are people spouting on about it being shit becuase its on nintendo?

    And I'm saying we need to redefine what "shit" is.

    I (probably) wont like it, you (probably) wont like it (neither of us have played it).. But yet a young kid may like it. .. And thousands of people who will innevitably buy it will like it.

    Sure we can scoff at them for buying a "shit" game.. but i'd imagine there are a lot of (for eg) mums or young kids out there who'll enjoy this a damn site more than they would a game of GOW2..

  • Daymare #162 3 years ago

    "This is a distinction a lot of gamers still seem to struggle with, and it's why there are so many arguments about scores. Games are still relatively young as an artform though, so we're still working towards the critical language to evaluate them. Film, on the other hand, is more established and so there are tangible and compelling elements that can be said go together to make "good" films. Some are technical, some are artistic, but there's an accepted critical framework behind professional film criticism that comes from the study of a well developed artform. Games will get there, sooner rather than later, but it's a work in progress.

    In other words, it's perfectly OK to play a 10/10 game and not enjoy it, and it's perfectly OK to play a 5/10 game and really enjoy it, just so long as you don't make the mistake of assuming that your subjective level of enjoyment somehow changes the objective qualities of the game, or that your differing opinion makes the reviewer wrong."

    Oh so very much +1

    Teh internetz (among other things) somehow made people believe that a knowledgeable, inteligent criticism (which is what we expect from sites like this) is just another simple opinion, equal to every other person's who has the ability to post a fucking comment. Well, it's not, no matter how much it hurts egos of people claiming such nonsense.

  • peterfll #163 3 years ago

    I do that. I just don't get paid any money to do it.

  • makeamazing #164 3 years ago

    You are a muppet potato.

  • #165 3 years ago

    yeah and about 10 million retards will buy this over xmas no doubt. Nintendo really are scaping the bottom of the cash cow now.

  • Stoatboy #166 3 years ago

    re: "scraping the bottom of the cash cow"

    Ew! Hehe. Now there's a mental image I didn't need.

  • smelly #167 3 years ago

    "Nintendo really are scaping the bottom of the cash cow now."

    How are they "scraping the bottom of the barrel" if people are going to be buying it?

  • revrob #168 3 years ago

    Hello, an Actual core gamer here. The actual core that clocked more hours in FPS before there even was an Xbox centered around that being their only strength; sick of interactive cinema, sick of games that just lead through a story line and then when you're done, you're done. Glad that Nintendo is the only one keeping it real with ACTUAL games that are freaking FUN, replayable, and on your mind all the time.

    Wii Music is an EXCELLENT, well crafted, wonderful game. Is it a bit too core for the minor-hard-core who just like to watch pretty graphics? Yeah. I'm afraid it's a bit hard for them. That sucks, but some day they'll mature and Wii Music will still be there to welcome them.

    I love Wii Music and can't stop playing it - if you think you'd like this game do yourself a favor and grab it! Easy to start, freaking difficult to master; it is for the actual core, and not the pretend.

    Take the style-lessons. Take the expanded style lessons. Practice with each instrument free-style to understand its intricacies. Learn the finesse and rhythm, learn what instruments compliment each other. Re-record a song until it sounds just like you imagined it would. Have fun and create something rather than just being lead through life with someone holding your little hand!

    Wii Music is an instant classic; people who don't like are saying more about their lack of gaming skills than they are about the game.

  • mkreku #169 3 years ago

    Do re mi fa sol LOL ti do!

  • Waldo #170 3 years ago

    revrob = shill

  • cyber_nicco #171 3 years ago

    With all due respect, Smelly...

    Look, I've seen some of these Wii Music adds, and I see a lot of adults being portrayed as using and enjoying this crap. So where you get off deciding what the "target audience" for this is is totally beyond me. If you can't come to grips with the fact that this seems to be complete and utter crap, then it is clear that you have gone off the deep-end.

  • merkdot #172 3 years ago

    In the latest "Iwata Asks", Miyamoto and Iwata bang on about this like it's the second coming, but it turns out it's just a toy for barely sentient toddlers.

    Let's hope Miyamoto doesn't feel like he has to persist with this series to somehow "prove" to the "hardcore" that they're somehow wrong about it.

    This is a tragic mis-step. I know two young parents whose kids gave it five minutes before turning to something else. If it sells in any kind of numbers, I predict a good portion of them will be filling up the pre-owned shelves in January.

  • spacenugget #173 3 years ago

    Jesus Christ People get over it!
    The amount of people whinging about the Wii and how they're going to sell it yada yada yada......

    Its a miss. LOTS OF GAMES are a miss. on every platform.
    Ive played many great games this year on the Wii, The 360, the DS etc
    But Ive also played many Shite games on all those consoles too! remember Dead or Alive 2 extreme? Vampire Rain? Two Worlds? Pimp my Ride? Every console has shovelware or just shite games. Get over it and play good ones.
    But its pointless saying this, always has been.

    Its not a great game... yawn. Im off to find a good one... ooohhh look
    Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World.
    Im sure its got loads of throwaway minigames, waggle control and 2 hours of gameplay, beacause every Wii game has that. oh... wait... ohhhh
    Edited by 1 at 12/11/08 @ 23:37

  • Sid-Nice #174 3 years ago

    I might get this on Friday a 5/10 isn't that bad when you read the Eurogamer scoring policy.

  • Sid-Nice #175 3 years ago

    If Call of Duty World at War gets a canny score I might get that instead; but for what console?

  • gaselite #176 3 years ago

    The argument that scores are meaningless because everyone has different taste doesn't really hold water. A "good game" is not simply a subjective opinion, though. Whether you personally enjoy it or not, there are enough quantifiable traits that BioShock displays to mark it out as a good game, even a great one. You may not have liked it, but that doesn't make it "rubbish".

    This is a distinction a lot of gamers still seem to struggle with, and it's why there are so many arguments about scores. Games are still relatively young as an artform though, so we're still working towards the critical language to evaluate them. Film, on the other hand, is more established and so there are tangible and compelling elements that can be said go together to make "good" films. Some are technical, some are artistic, but there's an accepted critical framework behind professional film criticism that comes from the study of a well developed artform. Games will get there, sooner rather than later, but it's a work in progress.

    In other words, it's perfectly OK to play a 10/10 game and not enjoy it, and it's perfectly OK to play a 5/10 game and really enjoy it, just so long as you don't make the mistake of assuming that your subjective level of enjoyment somehow changes the objective qualities of the game, or that your differing opinion makes the reviewer wrong.

    Bloody brilliant post and exactly what I was thinking when I read that smelly though Bioshock et al were rubbish.

    Except maybe that 'games as artform' part. But that's an argument for another day.

    I loathe scoring in videogame reviews in general. Fucking loathe it. If I had my way there'd be a lot less of it.

  • gaselite #177 3 years ago

    Incidentally, I remember growing up as a kid through the NES and predominantly SNES era. The Super Mario games, now those were some fucking sublime kids games, equally suitable and challenging for adults.

    I don't really want to get all nostalgic-snob up in here, but goddamn, if things like Wii Music are the standard bearer for video game playing kids these days... damn... thank god for the virtual console is all I'll say.

  • daver #178 3 years ago

    This is an excellent review Elliie, i wish you wrote more of the big reviews. Your writing is informing and excellent.

  • Charlie_Miso #179 3 years ago

    /buys

  • Les #180 3 years ago

    "The argument that scores are meaningless because everyone has different taste doesn't really hold water. A "good game" is not simply a subjective opinion, though. Whether you personally enjoy it or not, there are enough quantifiable traits that BioShock displays to mark it out as a good game, even a great one. You may not have liked it, but that doesn't make it "rubbish"."

    That doesn't work. There's no universal 'good', 'great', etc. So asigning a game the label 'good' is meaningless as good in itself is meaningless if the one that uses it and the one(s) that it's used for don't share the same definition.

    As for Bioshock, IMHO it's cleverly disguised shit that managed to fool most of the gaming press. ;)

  • bad09 #181 3 years ago

    / sings accompanied by The Wii Music Toddler orchestra

    "Les and Bioshock sitting in a tree

    K I S S I N G...."
    Edited by 1 at 13/11/08 @ 08:21

  • gaselite #182 3 years ago

    I think it's fair to say the recognised 'good' are the fundamental mechanics that many new games will borrow/adhere to because it has brought commercial and critical success in the past. Bioshock has that and its own wonderful flourishes.

    The whole Wii house of cards is forecast to collapse as with the credit crunch and now recession, the "casual" market will dry up as gaming is not important to them.

    This 'forecast' doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. In fact the opposite is more likely. Escapism has always been important historically during tough economic circumstances. A Wii is relatively inexpensive and can provide hours of easy to come by entertainment over a prolonged period for a broad age group. Even better value if you throw the virtual console into the equation. It is actually, on paper, the perfect 'recession console', believe it or not. I imagine the Wii will be a commercial force until Nintendo decide that it's time to move on from it.
    Edited by 2 at 13/11/08 @ 09:10

  • Daymare #183 3 years ago

    "That doesn't work. There's no universal 'good', 'great', etc. So asigning a game the label 'good' is meaningless as good in itself is meaningless if the one that uses it and the one(s) that it's used for don't share the same definition."

    If a group of avid lovers of whatever medium/art form study (not just "consume" without a thought, that is) a body of work, a definition of what's good and what isn't slowly comes into focus. Books are written, theory evolves and, suddenly, you have a basic groundwork on which you can judge works of that particular medium. The longer the medium/art form exists, more it takes to know it and understand it and that's when the difference in knowledge comes into play.

    As Dan said, games are still on its way to reach that point and when that time comes, there are going to be Bioshocks and Halos and Braids and Super Mario Galaxies mentioned and discussed, no matter how many smellys, Les' and others' posts on how one particular game didn't suit their tastes will clutter the forums.

    Just because we can, in this day and age, so easily "consume" so many mediums, that doesn't mean eveyone's an expert. Most people usualy just watch/play/listen something, reacts to it (according to their taste) and moves on (not before they post "Halo 3 is shit" or something equivalent, just because they can). No thinking, just subjectivism, the "pleasure me or fuck off" mantra. Any valuable criticism is beyond that or, at least, tries its best to be. And every valuable medium/art form has objective merits that reach beyond the tastes of its many consumers.

  • pjmaybe #184 3 years ago

    One thing's for sure, instant top 5 in the all formats charts straight after release.

    C'mon. Wii owners keep buying Carnival Games ffs, they'll be all over this like cops on donuts

  • Nikanoru #185 3 years ago

    Hahaha oh god, when I read this thread it's like I'm just looking at one big wall of "blah blah blahh blaahhhh".

  • BartonFink #186 3 years ago

    By far the most amusing thing in the entire comments has to be smelly defending this. Has to be a new high for him.
    Les is running a close seconds though.

    Great stuff guys keep it up.

  • Rash' #187 3 years ago

    Wii has been and continues to be such a success that the only danger is Ninty could fuck it up for themselves. change is only innovative if it's substantial and long term. this over reliance on the casual market could bite ninty in the ass... i bloody hope so too. they've become a little too self righteous

  • jamespo #188 3 years ago

    Going to be an exciting Xmas round the wii owner's house this year

  • kangarootoo #189 3 years ago

    @smelly

    "The people who make them usually have no journalistic training - all they are, are fanboys of games."

    That is a bit out of line. Most of the staff at EG have been professionaly writing for longer than you have been wearing long trousers.

    I take your point about the review perhaps not understanding the target audience of the game, but they do understand the target audience of the site. What is the point of presenting a review that means nothing to your readers?

    It is only a review, and the words convey plenty about the game. If the review is pitched at the readership of the site, how exactly does that make it bad journalism. This game may well appeal to little kids more than most of EGs readers, but we can surely work that out for ourselves. You certainly seem able, which makes your angst all the more weird (if you felt you had been misled, you might have a point).


    "the reviewer starts with a 10 score in mind (before actually playing), and subtracts if they find anything wrong. A kids game starts with a 6 in mind before playing, and gets adjusted according to whether there's good or bad points. "

    Where on earth did that pseudo science spring from? I might even suggest it is nonsense to say that the base mark for a quality kids game is 6/10. That suggests kids are happy with poor quality games, which they aren't. The definition of quality should be adjusted for the target market, but not its measure.


    "Cue lots of 360 hugging twats jumping in, missing the point of what i've said and calling me a "nintendo appologist" or something equally moronic."

    That is a bit defensive don't you think? How about just fielding questions as they come, and ignoring the ones you think are just trolling? It might make you seem a bit surer of your opinion.

  • kangarootoo #190 3 years ago

    @smelly

    This on the other hand...

    "I'm sorry to break it to you.. but all games consoles are toys..

    When you're running around on screen in your latest shooter thinking you're all grown up.. all you're really doing is playing with a fake gun. You may as well be running around with a piece of plastic shouting "dakka DAKKA DAKKA!" at other kids doing the same to you. "

    is spot on.

  • kangarootoo #191 3 years ago

    @FooAtari

    "There is a difference though. Like the difference between someone that only listens to chart music or the huge bands that fill stadiums, and someone that had a huge collectiono of music, most of which many people havent heared of and goes to gigs every weekend."

    But that simply describes differing tastes and habits. My issue is when people try and suggest that "proper taste" is somehow learned. "Amateur gamers buy games about XYZ, whereas proper gamers are into ABC". That is the kind of attitude I object to.

    Nobody who likes Brittney Spears is "wrong" (it hurts to write it, but its true), they just have different tastes in music to other music fans. Same applies to fans of Jean Claude Van Damme compared to fans of the Cohen Brothers.

    Suggesting that people who buy casual games do so because they are idiots and sheep, rather than because they genuinely enjoy that kind of game, is f*cking childish elitist insecure shite and says far more about the tit that wrote it than the "casuals" they berate (that isn't aimed at all at you btw, just in case that isn't clear).

  • kangarootoo #192 3 years ago

    @smelly

    "I cant be arsed as i'm talking to a load of deaf ears"

    How SUPREMELY self important and self absorbed. You assume that if people don't agree with you, the fault is theirs?

    Awesome, keep thinking that way buddy. Your personal development is well on the way to utter stagnation.

  • Les #193 3 years ago

    “Books are written, theory evolves and, suddenly, you have a basic groundwork on which you can judge works of that particular medium. The longer the medium/art form exists, more it takes to know it and understand it and that's when the difference in knowledge comes into play.”

    But still that groundwork is subjective. It’s the sum of countless subjective opinions, some of them canceling each other out but in most cases just enforcing each other until you get an elitist group opinion on what is art, what is beautiful, what is good, etc. It’s nowhere close to being universal. Nor should it be. All I’m saying is that people should take critics with a piece of salt. And in the case of game reviewing that’s still in its infancy, with a big piece of salt.

    All this ‘knowledge’ that is built up around works of art is in the end just history. It tries to explain the context of the works, the deeper meanings the artist might have had, etc. For some people that might add to a piece of art (e.g. cameos in movies, symbolism in paintings), to a lot it doesn’t and to some it takes away from it.

    “And every valuable medium/art form has objective merits that reach beyond the tastes of its many consumers.”

    Again, here I disagree. The only ‘objective’ merit is that it’s being subjectively enjoyed by someone. That’s enough reason to warrant its existence but no higher, universal meaning can be distilled from it.

    In the end, the only thing that should be important in the case of a piece of art is whether you personally like it or not.

  • Les #194 3 years ago

    "Les is running a close seconds though.

    Great stuff guys keep it up."

    No probs, really enjoying it! :)

    But why don't you come off the fence and add your 2 cents?

  • UncleLou #195 3 years ago

    ""The argument that scores are meaningless because everyone has different taste doesn't really hold water. A "good game" is not simply a subjective opinion, though. Whether you personally enjoy it or not, there are enough quantifiable traits that BioShock displays to mark it out as a good game, even a great one. You may not have liked it, but that doesn't make it "rubbish"."

    That doesn't work. There's no universal 'good', 'great', etc. So asigning a game the label 'good' is meaningless as good in itself is meaningless if the one that uses it and the one(s) that it's used for don't share the same definition."


    It does work. The philosophical approach that everything is entirely subjective is correct, but doesn't really work in reality. There's a consensus between like-minded groups of people that is almost as good as objectivity, and we all rely on it, all the time. This is not as good a game as Portal.

  • oerhoert #196 3 years ago

    <em>why assign three review pages to a game most people around here won't care about anyway and to make it worse have it been written by someone who can't really write?!</em>

    What a loser.

    Excellent review Ellie, I'm glad you used the space you needed to get all points across. Very thankful that you brought some other people in as well, it made the article a lot more informative.

    That being said, it'd be easier if the article was just one long page—but then, that's always the case here at EG, innit?

  • Les #197 3 years ago

    "There's a consensus between like-minded groups of people that is almost as good as objectivity, and we all rely on it, all the time. This is not as good a game as Portal."

    We tend to gravitate towards groups that share our opinions. Therefore, subjective opinions forwarded by people in that group have a higher chance of matching your own subjective opinion. In that sense a subjective opinion can have value to a person: Instead of experiencing everything for yourself (which of course isn't possible due to constraints in time) you can limit your investigations to those experiences that have a higher than normal chance of being enjoyable to you. Still has nothing to do with objectivity though. And the mechanism can backfire.

  • kangarootoo #198 3 years ago

    @smelly

    "What a load of garbage.. and it doesnt make her 6 years old either does it?"

    Holy christ. Are you actually suggesting now that games aimed at 6 year old children should be reviewed by 6 year old children? Have you lost your mind?

  • kangarootoo #199 3 years ago

    @smelly

    "The "hardcore" elitist snob gamer (the "indie music" fan who seeks out obscure bands) is the gamer who bought okami/psychonauts"

    This thread is full of gems from you. Psychonauts and Okami were both great games. I did play them because of some hardcore delusion or aspiration. I played them because they were fun to play.

  • kangarootoo #200 3 years ago

    "Wii Music is an instant classic; people who don't like are saying more about their lack of gaming skills than they are about the game."

    /sighs

  • kangarootoo #201 3 years ago

    On the subject of objectivity in game quality, I tend to differ a little from Dan in that I don't believe there are objective elements of quality present in games. It is a largely semantic disagreement though, and I have to break into pedant mode to explain why I think this is the case (which is of course water of a duck's back for a pedant like me :) ).

    I do believe there are observable traits common in many games, but assigning QUALITY to those traits is a purely subjective exercise.

    Saying that a particular game has good graphics is an entirely subjective statement, because at any time aomebody could come along and say "I don't like those graphics". Nobody can tell that person they are wrong, because their comment is subjective opinion.

    Now we can observe commonly held subjective opinions amongst gamers. We might for example be able to find 100 million people who agree that Gears of War has better graphics than Jet Set Willy. However, all we are doing there is observing a majority collective opinion. That opinion is NOT made objective in the scientific sense, just because a lot of people share it.

    That is why I say the following statement is not correct;

    "A "good game" is not simply a subjective opinion, though. Whether you personally enjoy it or not, there are enough quantifiable traits that BioShock displays to mark it out as a good game, even a great one."

    There are absolutely quantifiable traits present in Bioshock, and many people may agree in their assignment of quality to those traits, but the process of assigning that quality is NOT an objective exercise. NO MATTER how many people agree. There is therefore NO objective basis on which a game can be rated, only a subjective one, that perhaps accurately reflects the majority opinion.

    /pedantry ends, until the next time... which is probably in about 14 minutes.

  • Les #202 3 years ago

    "Excellent review Ellie, I'm glad you used the space you needed to get all points across. Very thankful that you brought some other people in as well, it made the article a lot more informative."

    Informative maybe, but relevant? I don't think so personally.

  • UncleLou #203 3 years ago

    Still has nothing to do with objectivity though. And the mechanism can backfire.
    ignore poster


    It's closer to objectivity than it is to subjectivity, really, as far as the decisions we make every day are concerned. We use the consensus of like-minded groups - within limits - as objective guidelines. It's a moot point that everything is subjective.

  • Daymare #204 3 years ago

    "But still that groundwork is subjective. It’s the sum of countless subjective opinions, some of them canceling each other out but in most cases just enforcing each other until you get an elitist group opinion on what is art, what is beautiful, what is good, etc."

    It's only elitist to people claiming that there is no objective value to some "pieces of art" (in the context of others) and that everything in this regard is subjective and that every opinion on this matter is equal (in other words, Scary Movie is as good as No Country For Old Men or even better since it made more money, etc). To me, it's called understanding of subject matter or, better yet, "knowing what the fuck you're talking about".

    "All this ‘knowledge’ that is built up around works of art is in the end just history. It tries to explain the context of the works, the deeper meanings the artist might have had, etc."

    Yes. And knowing it and studying it makes your judgement more informed. And that's just one of the requirements of a good criticism, others being intelligence, objectivness (as far as it goes, anyway), knowing how to write, being well versed in general, thinking for more then just a couple of seconds about the subject you're criticising, etc. It's not just something you pull out of your ass, which is what most people do and then claim "it's all subjective and equal".

    "In the end, the only thing that should be important in the case of a piece of art is whether you personally like it or not."

    To me (or any other particular person), yes. People can and should enjoy what they will. But that doesn't make my/their opinion as good (as worthwile to express) as someone's who cares and knows much more about the particular Art form I just ocassionaly glance at. It takes a bloated ego to say otherwise. To put it simply: knowledge > taste. And there *is* knowledge about Art forms as there is knowledge in medicine and mechanics and biology and so forth, even if you call it "just history" as you did.

    I can already see you shaking your head:) It is a debate leading nowhere, I think. I believe in the Truth in Art, you believe in truths. And that's that I guess. From now on, mechanics should write books about movies, doctors should write about cosmology and some dork we pull off a street should write game reviews;)

  • UncleLou #205 3 years ago

    That I quoted the "ignore poster" bit is not a subtle hint, but an accident. ;-)

  • UncleLou #206 3 years ago

    To put it simply: knowledge > taste. And there *is* knowledge about Art forms as there is knowledge in medicine and mechanics and biology and so forth, even if you call it "just history" as you did.


    Agreed. Though I'd say knowledge leads to a more cultivated/experienced taste/opinion. Which is why the "everything is subjective" line is often used as a sweeping killer argument by people who lack knowledge and experience in a certain area. The validity of a person's opinion to us is bigger if, as you put it, the person knows what the fuck they're talking about.

  • kangarootoo #207 3 years ago

    @UncleLou

    "It's closer to objectivity than it is to subjectivity, really, as far as the decisions we make every day are concerned"

    Well, some might say that is simply common misuse of the word. Stephen Hawkings might say that some things are absolutely objective, and may other things that we refer to as "nearly objective" are nothing of the sort.

    Did I even last 14 minutes? :)

    "That I quoted the "ignore poster" bit is not a subtle hint, but an accident. ;-) "

    Haha. Probably valid either way :)


    @Daymare

    "To me, it's called understanding of subject matter or, better yet, "knowing what the fuck you're talking about". "

    I think there is a degree of irony in your statement about "knowing what the fuck you are talking about". What you are describing is someone taking an objective stance when examining evidence. That is NOT the same as assigning subjective quality to an observable trait.

    "Good" and "bad" are NOT objective values when applied to something like art. They just aren't. Unless we start changing the fundamental meaning of words that is, but what is the point of that?

    I agree that use of language changes all the time, and a dictionary is a guide to use as a much as it is a list of true meanings. However in this case, your definition of the word "objective" already has a perfectly useable alternative. And that alternative is the word "subjective". Deciding that the two are interchangeable might suit an agenda of raising the profile of art and games, but it is otherwise pointless at best, and misleading at worst.

  • Daymare #208 3 years ago

    "We tend to gravitate towards groups that share our opinions. Therefore, subjective opinions forwarded by people in that group have a higher chance of matching your own subjective opinion."

    I don't see it as gravitating towards "groups" but recognising that someone knows more about something then I do. Either you approach it like that and you might learn something or you just go "hey, my opinion is the best, what do these dorks know" and dismiss it all. I just don't see why Art, which is as important to society as medicine in my humble opinion, should be subjected to such subjectivism. If you don't see a lawyer when you're feeling sick, I don't see the reason why you shouldn't read a book about painting, written by an expert on this matter, instead of just claiming "it's all just an opinion". Stance like that means you just don't care enough to "dig deeper".

    And there are only two groups anyway: people that know more and people that know less;) (half kidding, of course)

  • Daymare #209 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    "Good" and "bad" are NOT objective values when applied to something like art."

    They are not in any other case either, if you go by this philosophy;)

    "However in this case, your definition of the word "objective" already has a perfectly useable alternative. And that alternative is the word "subjective"."

    I can pretty much claim the same on every other subject your bring up. Which means that if you're a partisan of subjectivism in this regard, you must go all the way and be a partisan of it on all the other topics. There's no middle ground. Either everything is subjective or it isn't. I know where I stand.
    Edited by 1 at 13/11/08 @ 11:19

  • kangarootoo #210 3 years ago

    @Daymare

    Things are getting split down the middle a bit here. I don't doubt that someone can study art to a high level, and of course learn a lot about the various techniques and directions involved. And someone expanding their own knowledge (and subjective opions) of art could be aided in that journey by reading the books written by those who are more experienced.

    All I am saying is that studying art to a high level does not qualify someone's preference over that of anybody elses. If I walk into a gallery and say "I like that painting more than that one" it is a nonsense for someone to say to me "that is wrong, and if you had studied art more you wouldn't think that way". Perhaps studying art would change the way in which I assign value to various aspects of a given work, but that would still be a subjective process.

    I am NOT saying that just because opinion is subjective, the knowledge that someone has built throguh study of art has no value. I am just saying that what they have gained is knowledge, not authority to deliver objective definitions of quality.

  • kangarootoo #211 3 years ago

    "They are not in any other case either, if you go by this philosophy;) "

    I agree. I am one of those people that tend to think that "good" and "bad" are subjective values of a moral society. A moral society within which I fit I might add. There are commonly held opinions (we can all agree murder and rape are bad, for example), but those are still subjective opinions based on our ideas about good and bad.

    Was everybody who went to watch gladiators fight in ancient rome a "bad" person, or did they just have a different reference point for that particular aspect of life?


    "I can pretty much claim the same on every other subject your bring up. Which means that if you're a partisan of subjectivism in this regard, you must go all the way and be a partisan of it on all the other topics."

    All topics where subjective opinion is a factor, absolutely. But not all topics perse. Tbh, its not so much the topic being discussed byt the statement made about it ("that painting has been created using oils and a pallette knife" is an objective statement within the subject of art).

    Example.
    If I state the chemical composition of the Sun, that is not a subjective statement, it is a completely objective one. If however I simply say that the Sun is "very hot".....

  • merkdot #212 3 years ago

    I think it's very fair to say that if "most people don't like this" then it is not a good piece of entertainment.

    The only social subgroup whose majority that I've found to support this product could charitably be described as extremist Nintendo supporters.

    Indeed, this game more than anything else actually sheds them fully in the spotlight, whether they believe it of themselves or not.

    I believe it is possible to be in a mental position whereby you can default to simply being unable to hold any other opinion or even realise that you cannot, exasperating as it is for everyone else who has to suffer.

    I liken it to faith.

  • merkdot #213 3 years ago

    I also believe that when something irrefutable comes along it can make them actually go crazy.

  • Daymare #214 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    "I am NOT saying that just because opinion is subjective, the knowledge that someone has built throguh study of art has no value. I am just saying that what they have gained is knowledge, not authority to deliver objective definitions of quality."

    But doesn't knowledge imply "authority", on any matter? There is no authority per se, since noone can force you to enjoy something you can't or make you "consume" something you don't want to - even if you don't like what your doctor says, you can go look for a second opinion. I understand this "authority" as "someone with knowledge" - someone to turn to when you seek knowledge. Everyone can enjoy whatever they want, but they shouldn't claim they know as much as some expert on the matter at hand. Taste is subjective, knowledge is not - not even in Art. Good criticism is not just an opinion, it's an informed one. You can ignore it, not agree with it but to call it equal to everyone elses is a wee bit ignorant. All opinions are equal in practical sense, yes, but if you want to learn something, you would want to turn to an opinion of an "authority", I hope? Whose biological theory would you take greater interest in: biologist's or mechanic's?

    Ah, I'm going in circles. I believe in "authority" in Art, you don't (I don't know, maybe it's about how much we care about something). Everyone is Art's target audience but it's not for everyone, if you know what I mean.
    Edited by 1 at 13/11/08 @ 12:00

  • itsfuzzy #215 3 years ago

    Oh dear. The Wii is my favorite dust collecting item in my house this past year. And it will continue. This game bombed in Japan. If they wont embrace we certainly wont.

  • Les #216 3 years ago

    " Just don't see why Art, which is as important to society as medicine in my humble opinion, should be subjected to such subjectivism. If you don't see a lawyer when you're feeling sick, I don't see the reason why you shouldn't read a book about painting, written by an expert on this matter, instead of just claiming "it's all just an opinion". Stance like that means you just don't care enough to "dig deeper"."

    I agree that art is important. Life would definitely be boring without it. I just don't think that you don't have to know 'what you're talking about' when forming an opinion on a piece of art or entertainment. The only thing that matters is whether you like it or not.

    A professional art critic might write a more informative review about Guernica than someone without a degree in Art History but their opinions on whether the painting is beautiful are equally worthy (or worthless).

    I personally like to know facts about pieces of art (e.g. speculations about who the people in Rembrandt's The Jewish Bride actually are) but those pieces of information don't make a difference in assessing whether or not that piece of art appeals to me.
    Edited by 1 at 13/11/08 @ 12:30

  • Daymare #217 3 years ago

    "The only thing that matters if whether you like it or not."

    This is the point where we'll just have to agree to disagree. :)

  • Les #218 3 years ago

    "Taste is subjective, knowledge is not - not even in Art."

    &

    "All opinions are equal in practical sense, yes, but if you want to learn something, you would want to turn to an opinion of an "authority", I hope? Whose biological theory would you take greater interest in: biologist's or mechanic's?"

    I agree, that's why I dubbed that knowledge 'history'. It's additional facts/hypotheses around a piece of art that might shed more light on what you actually can see/hear/experience. But this 'objective' (because falsifiable) knowledge is separated from the subjective enjoyment. It's information vs. opinion. If I want information, I go to an authority in the subject. If I want an opinion, I go to someone that I know in general shares my taste. Further credentials aren't really required in that case.

  • Les #219 3 years ago

    "This is the point where we'll just have to agree to disagree. :)"

    I guess so, but thanks for the intelligent debate! :)

  • Ryze #220 3 years ago

    Sorry, but lol

    I'll get a Wii for my Mum, but I'm not investing for myself until the games in development start to appeal to me more.
    Edited by 1 at 13/11/08 @ 12:52

  • kangarootoo #221 3 years ago

    @Daymare

    You keep referring back to medicine as some kind of reference, but its a flawed comparison. Some aspects of medicine are objective, other are not. Art is the same.

    A doctor telling you that you are have flu is making an objective statement. I doctor telling you that you look a bit peaky is making a subjective statement, and no amount of medical training will make the comment any less subjective.

    An art grad who tells me who a painting was constructructed is likely make objective statements, but if they tell me a painting is "very good" they are making a subjective statement, and again no amount of art training or research will change that. IT JUST WON'T ;)


    "Taste is subjective, knowledge is not - not even in Art"

    That is what I've been saying all along! When someone supplies factual information about what kind of melted rabbits feet were used to paint the ceiling of the an important chapel they are relying on knowledge, but when they tell you that the Mona Lisa is "teh awesum" they are relying on taste.


    "I believe in "authority" in Art, you don't (I don't know, maybe it's about how much we care about something)"

    Hehe. If I were feeling a bit cheeky, I might suggest that when people "care" about something a whole lot, it drives them to distort or ignore certain facts and definitions to suit their agenda. I LOVE art, I really do, but I don't let that change my opinion of what is fact and what is taste (just like I would totally LOVE there to be an afterlife, but that doesn't change my belief that there isn't one).


    I'm glad we are still getting on throughout this chit chat, even if most of the "getting on" is me getting on your tits with my pedantry :D


    Edit: so full of typos.
    Edited by 1 at 13/11/08 @ 13:00

  • Daymare #222 3 years ago

    "I agree, that's why I dubbed that knowledge 'history'. It's additional facts/hypotheses around a piece of art that might shed more light on what you actually can see/hear/experience. But this 'objective' (because falsifiable) knowledge is separated from the subjective enjoyment. It's information vs. opinion. If I want information, I go to an authority in the subject. If I want an opinion, I go to someone that I know in general shares my taste. Further credentials aren't really required in that case."

    Your stance is completely logical, since you percieve Art as something that's made just for enjoyment. Enjoyment (taste) is subjective, ergo whole Art is subjective.

    But if, like me for instance, you don't submit to this kind of simple interpretation of Art, credentials are needed. I don't seek opinions to suit my taste (because I don't think that my taste is really that important in the big scheme of things), but knowledgable theory that will expand my understanding and ways of interpretations of particular Art form (games are not yet at that point, I might add).

    "David Lynch knows more about movies than me" is an objective fact and would be even if I didn't like any of his movies.

    My taste in particular game/movie/song/painting/sculpture says less about said piece and more about me and what I like. That's just one function of Art. You either care enough and move on from this point (becoming a fan or maybe, later, an "expert";) or you make it a definitive point (remain a simple consumer).

    You want like-minded opinion, I want some more. And there is more, wheter you care for it or not.

    If it's all subjective, why do you even bother complaining over Bioshock and "how it fooled most gaming journos"? Yours and everyone elses opinion is completely meaningless, after all.. ;)

  • Fleisch #223 3 years ago

    Return of the LOL

  • kangarootoo #224 3 years ago

    @Daymare

    I'm not sure we are even talking about the same things at this point. My original point was purely about the subjective nature of "quality". I'm not saying that enjoyment is all that is important about art, or games (and I didn't introduce the subject or put the focus on quality of enjoyment). I'm simply making my pedantic point about the suggestion that "good" is anything other than subjective.

    I attribute no value (or lack thereof) to this, I am simply pointing out the meaning of the word and its application. It doesn't mean I don't take art seriously. All these comments about me being a consumer, or a fan, or an expert are really neither here no there. You don't actually know anything about my background regarding art, but your suggestion that it would matter either way is kind of expected given the discussion so far.


    "If it's all subjective, why do you even bother complaining over Bioshock and "how it fooled most gaming journos"?"

    At not point did I ever say anything of the sort. I thought Bioshock was awesome (subjective) and had depth (subjective) and was engaging (subjective) and thoughtful (subjective) and lost a bit of momentum near the end (subjective) and it cost me ~£38 to buy (objective). Again, I am simply picking a hole in the semantics used previously in this thread, with Bioshock as reference (and I wouldn't look like such a pedant if people didn't keep trying to keep steering the subject around to support whatever other points they might want to make).

  • ChrisS #225 3 years ago

    As a big fan of Wii Music, I have to say that this is the only negative review I've read which seems fair. Ellie's actually gone to a bit of effort here rather than playing it for a couple of hours and then claiming it's rubbish (I can tell the ones which have done this). Well done, Ellie.

  • Daymare #226 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    "Mona Liza is a masterpiece" is an objective fact - if you say it's not it's just your subjectivness speaking. Hehe, I'm kidding, but, also, sort of not:)

    "An art grad who tells me who a painting was constructructed is likely make objective statements, but if they tell me a painting is "very good" they are making a subjective statement, and again no amount of art training or research will change that. IT JUST WON'T ;)"

    Yes, his opinion is still subjective (of course, god damned!) but it's more objective then mine, who's clueless in the Art of painting. It "holds more water". It might be equal to mine, in practical sense, but it *still* "holds more water". :)

    Medicine examples are bad, I agree. I'll give another, even more extreme, hehe: if a blind person doesn't see the sun, does that mean it doesn't exist? This brings me back to my view that not everyone can understand Art (not everyone is "artistic" in nature). No ammount of persuasion will make others believe they don't see something others do but... BUT... well, you know where this is going and I know you completely disagree:)

    Level of involvement defines the level of understanding. Gosh, I don't know in how many words can I write about my stance in this regard (without going into details) but I'm running out of them..

    Please, save me and let's agree to disagree, PA-lease!!:)

    /wants to go play Mirror's Edge

  • Daymare #227 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    That post up there was for Les:) Sorry, my bad, should have made that clear.

  • kangarootoo #228 3 years ago

    "Yes, his opinion is still subjective (of course, god damned!) but it's more objective then mine, who's clueless in the Art of painting"

    You see this is where I think it all goes wrong. And its purely about the definitions of the word. To suggest one thing is "more objective" that another is a fallacy. The words are directly opposed and mutually exclusive. Something is either 100% subjective, or 100% objective. ALWAYS.

    The devil is in the detail here. "it holds more water" is a bit of a nonsensical statement, because it lacks the necessary object.

    "Bucket A holds more water than bucket B" is an objective statement, a statement of fact, within which there is no room for debate or disagreement (it may be an incorrect statement, but it is 100% objective).

    "Bucket A holds loads of water" is a subjective statement. Someone else could say "no, it holds barely any water" and that statement would be equally valid. The only way to introduce an object of reference and replace words like "loads" and "barely any" with definitive words like "more" or "less".

    Maybe one good way to think about it is to ask whether a term can be applied in mathematics?

    "5 > 3" is an objective statement. It is a pure statement of fact.

    The subjective equivalent might be to write "5 >" to imply that 5 is simply a "big number". You wouldn't find that in mathematics (cue maths boffin with an example that says I'm talking knackers).

    "if a blind person doesn't see the sun, does that mean it doesn't exist?"

    Oh man, I'm not even going to answer that one. 'Cos I can't even begin to imagine what point you are making with that ;)

  • kangarootoo #229 3 years ago

    Oh, btw.

    I agree to disagree :D

  • Daymare #230 3 years ago

    \O/

    ;)

  • Les #231 3 years ago

    "But if, like me for instance, you don't submit to this kind of simple interpretation of Art, credentials are needed."

    Why is demanding that art be entertaining a simple interpretation of it? Creating something that people actually enjoy (in the broadest possible sense, so e.g. a sad movie can be 'enjoyable' too) is one of the hardest things to do.

    Like I said, I enjoy getting to know little facts about an artist or a particular work. I value that knowledge itself. But no matter how many books I read or lectures I follow, I'll still think that Picasso's (or Braque's) cubist works look rubbish. While I would love Monet's paintings just as much if I never had visited Giverny or hand't read any book on impressionist art.

    Art history thus is interesting but it doesn't tell us anything about why something is generally accepted as beautiful or not. Evolutionary psychology might shed a light on that subject. In the end, art is but one form in which humans strive for status and power.

    "I don't seek opinions to suit my taste (because I don't think that my taste is really that important in the big scheme of things), but knowledgable theory that will expand my understanding and ways of interpretations of particular Art form."

    I don't think my taste is important either in the big scheme of things but it is important in my life. If I'm investigating whether to get a book, cd or go to a movie or exhibition, I might look for a source that I know from past experiences shares my taste. If I'm going to invest my limited time in an experience I want to enjoy (and this doesn't rule out educational value) I want to reduce the chance that it will end up as time wasted. So in these cases I look for opinions that are likely to match my own but of course it's not a foolproof mechanism, which is why I stress the relativity of opinions in general (and game reviews in particular).

    That doesn't mean however that I always look for opinions that I agree with (otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate). Dissenting or new opinions in general put one on the path of learning.

  • Daymare #232 3 years ago

    /is dragged right back in :)

    @to both Les and kangarootoo, basically

    "Art history thus is interesting but it doesn't tell us anything about why something is generally accepted as beautiful or not."

    I wasn't talking so much about history (plain 'ol history and facts) but Art theory in general, where aesthetics and all sorts of things are discussed in lenght. Theory, yes, subjective, yes, but still infinitely better and more thoughtful then "Halo 3 is shit" statements. Knowing more about all that surely expands your horizons?

    "You see this is where I think it all goes wrong. And its purely about the definitions of the word. To suggest one thing is "more objective" that another is a fallacy. The words are directly opposed and mutually exclusive. Something is either 100% subjective, or 100% objective. ALWAYS."

    Yes, this is where it all goes wrong, the definitions and how we value what we defined:) I don't know how you percieve "subjectivism" but I don't percieve it as something arbitrary. Our subjective views are based on something; partly on our taste, yes, but also partly on our understanding and knowledge and there are other factors too. Factors as in causes, reasons. And this reasons, why we percieve something as we do, are more refined on subjects that interest us compared to topics we don't care about. When I said that one subjective view can be more "objective" than the other I meant that one can be "closer to the truth". The truth as in knowing what makes a work of Art "good". What we can't and will not agree upon is if there even *is* The Truth in Art so all this discussion is "rigged" right from the beginning:)

    I can't give you a mathematical equation that would prove that one work of Art is better than the other. Is everything but what mathematics and science in general classify as a fact automatically subjective? Mathematical facts are all fine and dandy, but there are other truths as well, truths about human condition that you can wonderfully express with and understand through Art. And it's important How and Why a particular work of Art expresses something (if it even does so, that is) - in the context of its medium, as well as in the context of general history, artist's history and so on. Just because you can't scientifically measure that, doesn't mean it's all just "subjective", that all works of Art are "equal" and that everyone can recognize a good Art when they see one. They can't, just as blind man can't see the sun but it's still there. Blasphemous idea to you, I know, but that's just how I see it. I'm not entertaining an elitist view that Art is just for "special" people - it's for everyone - but some "see" it better then others just as some people are better mathematicians then others. And that's even *before* they start studying it for real.

    I just don't believe that Art should be a "victim" of arbitrary people's tastes (by that I mean the vocal "everyone's a critic" mentality, prevalent on the internet and not the who does or doesn't "consume" what and why). It is, every day, but that doesn't mean that unconditional subjectivism is an objective fact of Art's value and meaning.

    You two can basically paste your former replies and they would fit perfectly, since we're just going in circles anyway. :)

    /limps away

    Edited by 1 at 13/11/08 @ 16:05

  • darc #233 3 years ago

    I actually get physically nauseous when I see Mii's and that entire "art" direction now. A year ago it all seemed kind of interesting, streamlined, and the idea of integrating a users customized Mii consistently into other games seemed like a sensible idea. Now I see that the art style just doesn't have that kind of lasting appeal.

    I really hope we don't see a similar trend now that there are "Avatars" on XBox. Please leave them on the dashboard, where I can ignore them.

    P.S. I wrote this post before I had even begun reading the comments, and had no idea my "art direction" jab would come right on the heels of a whole discussion about the definition of Art. LOL.
    Edited by 1 at 13/11/08 @ 16:38

  • kangarootoo #234 3 years ago

    "subjective, yes, but still infinitely better and more thoughtful then "Halo 3 is shit" statements. Knowing more about all that surely expands your horizons?"

    Absolutely. Non-constructive comment drive me nuts, and say nothing good about the poster in most cases.


    "When I said that one subjective view can be more "objective" than the other I meant that one can be "closer to the truth". The truth as in knowing what makes a work of Art "good""

    This is where I guess we won't ever agree, which is cool.

    I simply don't believe that that Truth exists. In my world, whenever we say a piece of art is Good, we are saying it subjectively based on whatever set of values we hold. Even values that are based on a great deal understanding and education still come down to taste in the end. We can observe quantifiable features within a piece of art, but at exactly the point where we start to assign value to each of those features, the matter becomes subjective. Thats wot I fink anyway.


    "I can't give you a mathematical equation that would prove that one work of Art is better than the other"

    I know you can't, and you never will, 'COS IT DOESN'T EXIST!!
    ;)
    Hehehe (forgive that cheeky dig, if I'd said that face-to-face I would do so with a big daft grin on my face)

    Seriously though, we have definitely branched out into the realm of philosophy here. I can see that in some ways, my assertions are based on a degree of faith as much as yours are.

    Really, we are both stating "well XYZ is just true", when in fact what we really mean is "XYZ is true, because ABC is a given". And it sounds like it is actually on ABC that we disagree (if that still makes sense). Our views of the world differ just enough that we have a different foundation on which we base our beliefs (or lack thereof) in of the objectivity of art.

    The cool thing is that we got to that point without calling each other a twat. I'll leave the matter now, but I'll check back in to see if you or Les have a closing comment (just so as not to be so pious as to assume the last word).

  • kangarootoo #235 3 years ago

    "I hope the Xbox Avatars become required for use in all 3rd-person action titles on Xbox360 games myself. "

    Sarcasm or death. Pick one ;)

  • Gamer64 #236 3 years ago

    What a load of turd. //poops. "Oh look, its wii music!"

  • Fleisch #237 3 years ago

    Ill jump in this masive objective vs subjective thing for a second.

    Some art has been shown to actually cause visual disturbance and discomfort, called (appropriately) Visual Stress. This currently thought to be caused by people having a hyperactive response (in the visual cortex) to striped patterns. So some people are forced by their bilogical construct to not like some art as it gives them headaches etc!

    link to the research is here:

    [link url=http://www.essex.ac.uk/psychology/overlays/sciart/ind ex.htm
    ]http://ww w.essex.ac.uk/psychology/overla...[/link]

    Anyway, back on track a subjective is a view, opinion or idea formulated on ones own. An objective view is a critical appraisal based on imperical measures. I think Kangarootoo has been closest to this concept in his/her comments.

  • smugla #238 3 years ago

    this will be £15 in a few months time, Battalion wars went the same way and is £11 on amazon

  • Daymare #239 3 years ago

    "The cool thing is that we got to that point without calling each other a twat."

    Yeah, I certainly enjoy(ed) having this 'lil conversation, 'cause I don't get many chances to get these particular points off my chest in any worth-while way, here on EG. Too much thoughtless "this is shit, that is shit, he's this, she's that" but I guess I'll just have to get used to all this unapologetic subjectivism running wild on the internet;)

  • Les #240 3 years ago

    "I wasn't talking so much about history (plain 'ol history and facts) but Art theory in general, where aesthetics and all sorts of things are discussed in lenght."

    I do believe (as there's plenty of evidence that points in the direction) that the way our mind works makes it appreciate some forms, shapes, sounds, colours, etc. in art more than others (as Fleisch points out as well).

    "And it's important How and Why a particular work of Art expresses something (if it even does so, that is) - in the context of its medium, as well as in the context of general history, artist's history and so on."

    I agree they are important. But IMO they should not be the reason that makes the piece of art 'enjoyable'. If something looks/sounds bad, no matter how touching the story of the artist or powerful the message that he/she wants to convey, the piece of art itself has failed for me. I might still appreciate the story though on its own merits. E.g. in the case of Picasso, apart from his early work, that's the only thing that makes him worthwhile IMO.

  • n3rdh8r #241 3 years ago

    This review is stupid.

    You don't ask an arms specialist to review Halo.

    You don't ask a war veteran to review Brother in Arms.

    So why should you ask a musician to review Wii Music?

    The real question is, is it fun. Cause it's a game.