Wii Music Comments by Ellie Gibson

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....

seriously is such a waste of time

>"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.

>they created a console that no developers take seriously.

Well that's obviously nonsense to start with.

>"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And so it begins......

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.

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.

>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..

"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.

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

You are a muppet potato.

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

re: "scraping the bottom of the cash cow"

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

"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?

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.

Do re mi fa sol LOL ti do!

revrob = shill

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.

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.

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......

[b]Its a miss. LOTS OF GAMES are a miss. on every platform.[/b]
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

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

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

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.

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.

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

/buys

..And the Wii shovelware just keeps on rolling in! LOL you have to worry when even Nintendo are making the shite!
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. The HD consoles with the real gamers remain unaffected! THE END IS NIGH WII MANBABIES!!
Enjoy your super barbie magic princess pony waggle wand party while it lasts! Enjoy the most over rated game developer the world has ever seen MIYAMOTO as he shits out his last pieces of casual shovelware!

"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. ;)

/ sings accompanied by The Wii Music Toddler orchestra

"Les and Bioshock sitting in a tree

K I S S I N G...."

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.

"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.

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

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

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.

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

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

@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.

@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.

@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).

@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.

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

:D

“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.