Wii reviewers are the problem - Braben

By Robert Purchese Published 18 June, 2009

Family titles critiqued "poorly, if at all".

Frontier boss David Braben reckons the problem with Wii review scores stems from the type of critic assessing the game.

"Ruling out a source of information is never a good idea," Braben told Eurogamer, responding to Peter Moore's declaration that Metacritic is irrelevant to the success of a Wii game.

"The main problem he is alluding to is that family games tend to get reviewed poorly, if at all, by many mainstream review sites, typically dropping 10 or more percentage points as a result. Anecdotally, this is because most reviewers are what are often called 'core gamers' - and these family-focused games tend to appeal less to them (us!).

"It throws up a difficult dilemma for those reviewers," he adds. "Are they reviewing the game for those people likely to play it, or for those people who form the bulk of their readership? Clearly it has to be the latter, as that is why they are writing the review, why they are getting paid, but it devalues the accuracy of reviews as a measure of quality for family games, as most reviews are targeted at these 'core gamers', despite the fact the core gamer is unlikely to play it whatever the score."

Peter Moore argued that an advert on a website for a woman's magazine drives as much interest and consequently sales as a high review score. Examples are common and frequent: Punch-Out!!, MadWorld, Boom Blox, Okami and No More Heroes all reviewed well but sold badly in the UK. Conversely, Carnival: Funfair Games received 5/10 on Eurogamer but still enjoys a top 40 spot in the UK All-Formats chart one-and-a-half years after release.

"At Frontier we also use review scores as part of a forecasting process, but this is an indication of perceived quality, and this accuracy problem for family games is an issue that has to be allowed for. So, though I agree with Peter Moore that there is an issue here, it is more one with family games - indeed any games that do not include conventional dedicated gamers in their main audience - which are very common on Wii," said Braben.

"If there were an equivalent rating to Metacritic that only indexed family review sites, MetaFamilyCritic say, indexing the 'mommy bloggers' to which he refers, then he is not circumventing review sites - simply using a more appropriate collection that better match the audience.

"It is not really the Wii that Peter Moore is complaining about but reviews of family games in general. 'Core gamer' games on Wii still track forecasts based on Metacritic scores just fine," he concluded.

Yesterday, various industry sources argued on Eurogamer that success on the Wii is dictated by the size of advertising budget available, or the strength of brand in question.

The Wii titles present in the UK All-Formats top 40 this week support that theory.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (59) Latest comment 3 years ago

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

  • Doctor_What #1 3 years ago

    I like Braben, but I think he's got the wrong end of the stick. He's arguing for the innacuracy of the reviews, when Peter Moore's point was really about the general consumer for Wii titles not actually paying any attention to the reviews (accurate or otherwise).

    (Edited for typo.)
    Edited by 1 at 18/06/09 @ 13:06

  • Clive_Dunn #2 3 years ago

    Yep, it was reviewers that killed such family friendly classics as Thrillville:oTR on the Wii. If metacritic reviewed it as a 95/100 game it would have sold millions.

  • Genji #3 3 years ago

    I kinda think that he has some sort of point. Game reviewers by definition play a *shitload* of games, most of them for the hardcore crowd. As such, it might be difficult for some reviewers to adjust to playing simpler family fare.

    I have no idea what the solution would be, though. You can't exactly pay kids and soccer moms to review games.

    ...or can you?

    /spies business opportunity

  • Triggerhappytel #4 3 years ago

    What Clive Dunn said - the target audience for these games don't know about and/or look at review scores anyway, so surely his point is moot...?!

  • persus-9 #5 3 years ago

    Hmm I disagree. If there is such a thing as an accurate reveiw, and I believe there is, then I believe the reveiws are accurate and these games are crap. It doesn't mean that a lot of people won't enjoy them and it certainly doesn't mean they won't sell well. I myself enjoy a fair few poor quality movies (even though I know they're poor quality) and many people enjoy reading really poor quality romance or adventure novels. This doesn't mean a movie or literary critic would be being inaccurate to discribe such porducts as poor quality or give them a low rating, it might rather also be accurate to say that across all areas many people have very poor taste.

  • DFawkes #6 3 years ago

    A bad game is a bad game. Wii Sports is a nice family game, and it reviewed generally well because it's a good game. Bad games get low scores because they're bad in some way. At least that's how I thought reviews worked. I better start buying games that got terrible reviews just to check!

  • skillian #7 3 years ago

    How do you review a game that's fun for a moron? Tough question.

    Eurogamer is perfectly capable of reviewing a game like Nintedogs objectively, but if you distill it down, they're basically suggesting that points are added on to a crappy game because its intended audience doesn't know any better. That's just dumb.

    Leave those reviews to the 100-word reviews in newspapers and Heat magazine, where it's perfectly acceptable that Wolverine gets 4/5 stars.

  • gav_and_the_gavster #8 3 years ago

    He definitely has a point. I am a core gamer and my view of a casual game e.g. Carnival Funfair Games doesn't matter one bit. For a while, core gamers reviewing *certain* casual games have been about as relevant as asking Top Gear Magazine for their opinion on one of those single seater,low-powered battery toy cars toddlers can drive around in. I think the Wii has shown there's a large audience outside of the core and I predict gaming press (print and online) will end up having specialist reviewers on casual games who havemore in common with a games intended audience.

    Clive Dunn (great name BTW) - I disagree with you on your comment. There are brilliant games that do review very highly and still don't sell the numbers the score deserves (BG&E, Psychonauts, ICO and many many more).
    Edited by 1 at 18/06/09 @ 13:25

  • Toothball #9 3 years ago

    I always thought games reviews were written for the benefit of whoever reads whatever publication they appear in. Since "core" games read a site like this, readers here aren't likely to be so interested in a family game. Readers of some national newspaper or one of these blogging sites are on the other hand more likely to be interested in such games, so any reviews and opinions there should be more suited to that audience.

    I read an article on this a while back. One of the examples cited was review scores for Rez. Edge Magazine gave it a score of 9/10, while a dedicated PS2 mag gave it 6/10. Readers of either publication would likely disagree with the review in the counterpart magazine, but at the same time the score is probably accurate for the magazine that they choose to read. Braben's suggestion that some kind of index of family review sites is a reasonable one, especially with an increased interest in audiences who are more interested in such games. It might be a while longer before traditionally non-gaming sources start to include the sort of reviews and scores suitable to produce such an aggregated score though.

  • Genji #10 3 years ago

    "What Clive Dunn said - the target audience for these games don't know about and/or look at review scores anyway, so surely his point is moot...?!"

    Yes, but are there any "family-friendly" publications that they could look at instead?

  • Genji #11 3 years ago

    "How do you review a game that's fun for a moron? Tough question."

    Oh, I don't know. Why don't you tell me? How do people review the games that you find fun?

    /zing

  • neonxaos #12 3 years ago

    I know several people who love Carnival, and it really is quite fun at parties. That doesn't stop me from thinking it's a terrible average game.

    I guess that these games are not for us! And by using that reference, I think I just put myself square in the core gamer segment. I don't even own a Wii either.

  • marilena #13 3 years ago

    Some thoughts:

    - The title of the article is a shame. Braben made a very nuanced and careful analysis, which in no way states what the title claims.

    - He isn't even saying that reviewers should do something different. As he says, they review the game for their readership, and their readership is hardcore.

    - He says that review score matter for Wii games aimed at the hardcore gamers and I agree. But I wonder exactly how many hardcore gamers have Wiis. Sadly, it may not be enough to sustain this part of the market (good Wii games).

    - I can't help but feel that some games end up falling through the cracks in between the Wii's markets. Take Boom Blox. It's a good game, but it's also casual, so hardcore gamers won't buy it anyway. It's casual, but it doesn't make for an easy sell towards a casual audience like, I'm afraid, Carnival: Funfair Games does. The theme and how you transmit it is what sells a casual game and Boom Blox, starting with the name and continuing with the concept, doesn't capture the imagination.

    - Man, industry insiders like to talk shit. (And I'm not talking about Braben.)

    - The situation is exactly the same for films. Roger Ebert may think that A Night at the Museum sucks balls and his readers, people who care enough about films to read reviews mostly believe the same, but the majority, the 'casuals', don't care and they go see it anyway (and they enjoy it, too).

  • Teamallstar #14 3 years ago

    Who cares about Wii games? The wii is not really a console, but more of a party game machine or something that the old folk get out on birthdays and christmas.

  • LazyDan #15 3 years ago

    The eternal struggle between reviews and sales to determine which one accurately measures the quality of a game rages on. Nerds lean on reviews, developers and business lean on sales. Which makes sense really.

    Of course, games which sell well aren't necessarily good (like how I think Carnival is a turd,) and neither are games which review well (like how I think MGS4 is a turd.)

    It's almost like the quality of a game is entirely subjective or something.

  • Grogmonkey #16 3 years ago

    There's a couple of interesting points of discussion there:

    Firstly, is this secretly a dig at core gamers and their inability to appreciate family games? Personally, if a game is good, I'll get it and play it and no doubt enjoy it. I bought Nintendogs, I think Milo is an interesting experiment, and if EyePet turns out to have some amount of depth I'll probably pick that up. If, however, it's a steaming pile of horse apples, I won't get it. Because I have taste.

    'Core' and 'casual' aren't terms that describe the genres, lengths or content of games that people like; they describe the amount of experience someone has with gaming. A casual gamer will happily put up with 'Shitty Wii Sports Rip-Off 12', while core gamers are much more likely to say "That's clearly turd, I'm not playing that." It's the same, presumably, with game reviewers. There are those that understand that some games are good quality and some games aren't. Even a high-quality family game is worthy of 8s or 9s because, hey, it's high-quality (Lego Star Wars would be fair examples).

    It would be a fairly damning indictment of our industry as a whole if we had to start pandering to developers of shoddy 'casual' titles just because the people that buy them don't know any better.

  • Nodebug #17 3 years ago

    People buy shit games because they don't know any better. Either by review before hand or just generally don't understand what makes a good game. Be it great mechanics, good gameplay, longevity, lack of repitition, replayability. Gaming is still well in its infancy as a medium to the majority of the buying public.

    That being said, the same also applies to movies, a medium that is well out of its nappies and people still buy and enjoy shit films. Films that are poorly received critically can still go on to make millions just like a shitty game can. I think at the end of the day, stupid people don't need much to be entertained, and not only that, don't make the discernible difference between a truly great game and some shovelware party pap because its usually just 60 minutes of their time turning their brain off, the same way they make it through Emmerdale or Hollyoaks.

  • Freek #18 3 years ago

    There's plenty of good casual games that get good scores: Buzz, Wii Sports, Boom Blox, Guitar Hero, Mario Kart, Wii Fitt. Becuase they're actually good games, not cynical shovelware.


    The fact that quality doesn't matter when it come to sales is another matter entirely. But Wii Fitt scored good and soled good.
    That's got little to do with hardcore snobbery.

  • ChrisS #19 3 years ago

    Man's got a point, in fairness. Plenty of games which simply don't even get reviewed, particularly during the busy period. And then a bunch of others which don't get a fair crack of the whip because reviewers want to move onto the next core title.

    But then again, a lot of the specialist sites aren't writing for that kind of audience, so why should they spend valuable man hours on these titles? Bit of a vicious circle, really.

  • mingster #20 3 years ago

    Mommy Bloggers are the new MILF's

  • menage #21 3 years ago

    I agree with him on the fact that games reviewers don't like or review waggle family games. But seeing as the target audience of these reviewers isn't the same audience as those games I really don't think they should at all. I don't even think sites like Eurogamer have to review Horse Riding Penny part 2. Let some other publications less product specific or more family oriented review them.

    Also, a good game is a good game. There are lots of crap family movies which suck, then there's Pixar which doesn't. Same audience, huge leap in quality.
    Edited by 1 at 18/06/09 @ 14:12

  • mingster #22 3 years ago

    I have been waiting for the review of Horse Riding Penny part 2 and Hannah Montanna for ages when are they due?

  • BartonFink #23 3 years ago

    As already pointed out the fact that these games review poorly makes little difference as the target mommy, granny, and kiddie audience will likely never read them anyway and base their purchase on what they see in those awful Nintendo ads on TV.

  • oerhoert #24 3 years ago

    <em>DFawkes said: "A bad game is a bad game. Wii Sports is a nice family game, and it reviewed generally well because it's a good game. Bad games get low scores because they're bad in some way. At least that's how I thought reviews worked. I better start buying games that got terrible reviews just to check!"</em>

    The naivité is killing me.

    Games are subjective experiences, they're not "good" or "bad" in themselves. The preferences of the reviewers matter to what they write and think. It <em>is</em> a problem that most games reviewers are 20-35 year old men.

    <em>skillian said: "Eurogamer is perfectly capable of reviewing a game like Nintedogs objectively"</em>

    Nobody is capable of reviewing a game objectively. Reviewing games is inherently subjective.

    <em>skillian said: ""Leave those reviews to the 100-word reviews in newspapers and Heat magazine, where it's perfectly acceptable that Wolverine gets 4/5 stars."</em>

    Boo hoo. Now that's plainly unacceptable! How could they!

    Perhaps they found the game fun?
    Edited by 1 at 18/06/09 @ 14:20

  • Xerx3s #25 3 years ago

    "Our games aren't blatant ripoffs and shite, reviewers just need to up the scores."

  • curtlikesmeat #26 3 years ago

    Argh this is annoying.

    Readers of games magazines and sites like Eurogamer largely couldn't give a shit about family based Wii games. They're just irrelevant and that's why they get the coverage they deserve. Go market your games in Asda or Tesco where they belong. If you want to be reviewed alongside games like Half Life 2 and WoW then you can't complain when your simplistic cash-ins get largely trounced.

    Like a lot of people here say, a bad game is a bad game. I'd call Little Big Planet a family game, yet that received extremely positive reviews. That's because it was a good game. I used to love Nintendo but these people are becoming almost as annoying as Mac owners now!!
    Edited by 1 at 18/06/09 @ 14:29

  • Daymare #27 3 years ago

    Games are subjective experiences, they're not "good" or "bad" in themselves.

    Says you.

    ;p

  • swisstony #28 3 years ago

    My 7 year old daughter has played and loved a few games that the gaming press have slated. She's 7 you see, stuff a 'core' gamer can handle in terms of manual dexterity or puzzle solving or reaction speeds she can't. As such the 'simple' stuff goes down well, at least as well as the wii sports and other simple stuff that does appeal across the board.

    So some games are simple with very broad appeal and some are just simple with no broad appeal.

    Either way this site is not a site that I or she would pay any attention to with regard to reviews of casual (Wii) games. Having worked on a couple, and seen the reviews of them here and elsewhere, compared to people 'in the street' who've played them and enjoyed them, well, there's a marked difference in what one finds entertaining, even if there may be a substantive case for some form of objective quality assessment of such things.

  • matrim83 #29 3 years ago

    DFawkes A bad game is a bad game.

    Pretty much.

  • dadrester #30 3 years ago

    @Nodebug

    Are you related to Hitler?

    Did I miss something? Don't think anything he said was particularly offensive. In fact I tend to agree to an extent, though I would take the stance of 'inexperienced consumers' over, 'stupid consumers'. If you don't have a vocabulary and a knowledge of games, you won't expect so much or set such high quality benchmarks for stuff you buy, but that doesn't make you stupid.

    The problem is, that an inherently bad/un-enjoyable game is still bad, and most likely won't be enjoyed by "core" or "casual" gamers, and publishers seem to be quite content releasing sub-par quality games to make a quick profit. To be honest, I think this can only harm the current 'casual' market. If a person buys consistently bad games but knows no better, they will most likely be turned off their new pastime. If on the other hand every game they play is as fun as say, eyetoy, wii sports, peggle, singstar, buzz or guitar hero, they might actually start gaining a larger understaning of games in general exploring titles that previously didn't interest them...

  • Santino #31 3 years ago

    some sites cannot even review non family Wii games properly (EGs grand slam tennis review is the latest example) so what chance do family games have?

  • BigJonno #32 3 years ago

    "Also, a good game is a good game. There are lots of crap family movies which suck, then there's Pixar which doesn't. Same audience, huge leap in quality."

    Hit the nail on the head, really. If someone gives me a big pile of money, I will quite happily purchase a Wii and every family/casual/whatever you want to call it game that is released, play them with my wife and son and review them. Then I'll track sales to see if the quality has any effect whatsoever on the sales of the game.

    I'm predicting a "no."

  • orakio #33 3 years ago

    It's perfectly possible to review objectively. At least part of a game, that is.
    Some examples:
    - Responsiveness
    - Average gametime before completion
    - loading times
    - #bugs
    - AI (partly)


    Never completely objective, I agree, but never 100% subjective either.

  • menage #34 3 years ago

    @orakio

    True, but that would probably mean the end for 95% of all publications out of pure boredom that would generate. i like hearing someones opinion next to the technical facts.

  • djed #35 3 years ago

    This just in: GHIESTG OUESIBUSB!!"NRNRNRNJ"#JJJJj FOR YULETIDE AND QUEEN FFFFFFRRR,.,poRaaa22DK.

  • Les #36 3 years ago

    @ Doctor_What

    +1

    But still, his point that Wii games are generally reviewed by people that don't like Wii games is valid.

    I personally am of the opinion that all review scores are irrelevant, you really have to go through the text of multiple reviews combined with other information sources (e.g. interviews, trailers) to form a proper impression of a game.

    E.g. reviewers in general put high value on co-op, multiplayer, lots of pixels and replayability. Those are not important to me. If I just looked at scores, I would probably mis out on lots of games that perfectly suit my tastes.

  • YourMessageHere #37 3 years ago

    I remember a review (or possibly an editorial) that appeared here making approximately the same point as Braben - game journalists see games as game journalists, not as kids or non-hobbyist gamers. I don't think this addresses the point that Moore made, though, that they don't read those reviews anyway. If EG has an MMO section and a Retro section (and apparently a somewhat mysterious technical analysis section now in Digital Foundry), shouldn't it have a Family section too, and advertise it in family-orientated places?

    @ MattDamon

    What the hell is wrong with you? Some people are unintelligent and indiscriminate by nature - in a word, stupid. If you prefer, you could substitute the idea of them being ignorant, which is to say simply lacking the knowledge to be able to know quality from dross; it works as a concept, although it does ignore the sizeable population of people that should be more accurately described as stupid because they dislike accruing knowledge and actively don't want to. That's not a judgement, not an insult and not an opinion, simply a statement of fact. Stupid/ignorant people are not inherently bad, any more than intelligent/informed people are inherently good. Saying this does not make me or anyone else a fascist.

  • stevetuck #38 3 years ago

    Game directed at kids in sells tons shocker....

    Its funny the way you never hear anything from a successful shovelware game publisher/developer complaining about wii reviews. I bet these guys at Cat Daddy Games are proud of themselves for choosing to make a low budget game directed at the right audience on the wii.

  • Hantheman #39 3 years ago

    There I was thinking you review a game on its merits, rather than who's going to play it.

  • smelly #40 3 years ago

    >I like Braben, but I think he's got the wrong end of the stick

    Not at all. I'll give an example : You guys like to pick on wii music as being "shit"... AND it got bad review scores - But the reality is it's a GREAT kids game. Every kid that i've seen play it, thinks its the best thing since (i dunno) the tellytubbies (or whatever the modern day equivalent is)

    Gamers who post on forums and read reviews seem to think that ALL games should be aimed at you (the teenage kids who like shooters predominantely). But in the example of wii music - it was PERFECT for the audience for which it was intended - 6 year olds. And as such, if it was reviewed fairly - it should've been scored accordingly.

    But internet games reviews arent written for 6 year olds - they're written for teenagers like yourselves. Who'd find wii music crappy (as it's not aimed at you or me). And subsequently it got a crap score, and it got the whole internets laughing at it (unfairly imho)


  • smelly #41 3 years ago

    PS : I pick wii music - because it's the only piece of "kids software" i have any real experience with.

  • secombe #42 3 years ago

    Also, a good game is a good game. There are lots of crap family movies which suck, then there's Pixar which doesn't. Same audience, huge leap in quality.

    You're unintentionally backing up his point here. Pixar movies are made to appeal to a broad audience, from 3 year olds right up to parents, so we think of them as a good example of a movie not aimed at "us", when in reality - they are. A movie made purely for kids isn't necessarily a bad movie, even if "we" hate it.

    The Lego... games are the gaming equivalent, wide appeal. That doesn't then make a game exclusively aimed at kids bad, purely because they never considered the adult audience.

  • HermitArcader #43 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • Salaminizer #44 3 years ago

    Oh my god, Okami AGAIN? Another baby seal killed!!

  • smelly #45 3 years ago

    >Mario which appeal to a broad audience

    Mario games are the height of hardcore experience surely?

  • HermitArcader #46 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • curtlikesmeat #47 3 years ago

    Someone mentioned Loose Women - if there was a Wii game that allowed you to to do back handed slaps to Loose Women I would buy that (and a Wii to play it on).

    Whhhhhhhppisshhh!

  • smelly #48 3 years ago

    >break down audience barriers and are enjoyed by a wide following.

    Mario's a strange beast.. The forumite "hardcore" (not really "hardcore" - probably only been playing games since halo) gamers hate him - because of his toony graphics and stuff.

    But yet even galaxy (probably the easiest mario game?) would've been too hard for most "casuals" to get very far on. Hell even I had problems with some later levels, and i've been playing games for over 20 years.

    Mario really only seems to appeal to the 30-somethings who grew up with him, and understand the hard-core-ness of the gameplay.. while been able to overlook the graphical style.

  • smelly #49 3 years ago

    >And I still wanna know what games you made! :)

    Lots of them.. and most of them were terrible.

  • ST.. #50 3 years ago

    Who cares what David Braben has to say about the Wii - what does he have to say about 'The Outsider?' Come on EG!

  • Fatallyflawed #51 3 years ago

    I just have one question. Didn't Clive Dunn play Jonesy in Dads Army?

  • Sean.Aaron #52 3 years ago

    @YourMessageHere:

    I totally agree. If I ran a site like EG or IGN I would contract writers and reviewers to appeal to the broader market that has emerged to increase readership and make my site more relevant to people who were new to video games. Improving forum moderation would also be part of the equation.

  • Les #53 3 years ago

    "f I ran a site like EG or IGN I would contract writers and reviewers to appeal to the broader market that has emerged to increase readership and make my site more relevant to people who were new to video games."

    It sounds good in theory but it's very hard to execute in practice. Just having the content available will not make the casual gamers visit your site. Then there is the risk of alienating the hardcore that already do, even if you put it in a separate section.

    Life style and 'regular' (so non-specialist) media are probably better suited to reach the casual players with relevant reviews (and maybe they do already).

  • HenryFitz #54 3 years ago

    As a busy working-mum, and with all the distractions for today's youngsters of social networking sites and petty crime, it can be difficult to find time to come together as a family. That's why the Nintendo Wii's videogames for families are a godsend.

    Last week, the lovely people at Eurogamer gave me Carnival: Funfair Games to try out at home with my little and not-so-little ones. The first thing I noticed when I opened the package was how bright and cheerful the cover looked. That jolly little bulbous man and his oversized hand made me sure this was going to be just what the social worker ordered. I popped it in the disc drive and sure enough when the menu-screen appeared, it was all smiling faces and colour and my mood was lifted nearly as much as it had been after taking my morning Xanax! I quickly tried out some of the games to get a head-start on my really smart kids, but then the doorbell rang and it was the debt collection people, so I had to hide until they went away. Then the lawyer called with some news about the hearing, and before you know it it was time to pick the children up from school. Busy, busy, busy!

    When I finally got little Kanye, Shayne, Puff Daddy and Brittany home, I switched off all the circuit-breakers for their rooms, and we sat down together as a family for the first time since the arraignment. It was so unusual that Brittany asked if I was pregnant again and little Shayne cried because he thought the police had found the body! Silly sausages!

    We started out playing Ring Toss and Lucky Cups, because I remembered those from carnivals when I was young. We all had great fun playing these, even Kanye kept asking for another go, though he'd already played it a few times and got bored halfway through. I gave him some Ritalin though and then everything was great! PD and Brittany quickly tired of the novelty, but it was the first time either of them had taken an interest in something outside themselves in months. I managed to get them playing together for an hour and a half, and there were only minor injuries.

    Over the next few days, the children started to play the games themselves, without their boring old mum. PD really took to the single-player mode, and I think the colours and vibrancy helped him to see some hope in the future, something he needs in his recovery from crack addiction. Shayne brought his friends over to play with, so old Mr. Wilson in No. 42 had a break from the little tykes for a night. Maybe Shayne won't have another ASBO after all. Brittany brought her friends over for a party and they played for ages. It was such a hit that I didn't even find any condoms under her bed in the morning!

    Oh look at me, rabbiting on! But Carnival: Funfair Games really is a great title for families. If your kids are anything like mine, they'll love it, and you'll get the satisfaction of seeing their little faces light up for something other than drugs or pornography. 9/10.

  • Lutz #55 3 years ago

    I'm not gonna take anything Braben says as a valid opinion until he gets Elite 4 out of the door. That's if he's still got the capability to produce it.

  • Grayvern #56 3 years ago

    He doesn't really have a valid point, in some cases family games get a harder time but a more important argument would be for the intelligent reading of reviews, and as such can be applied to reviews of all types of games.

    If a reviewer says that an FPS is generic but you haven't played 50 FPS's in your life but 3 then obviously you adjust accordingly. If your a mum who has a wii and read comments about longevity you may think 'but ill probably only play it for 1 maybe 2 hours a week.'

    Also Eurogamer as has been said before reviews some casual games well.

    Braben also blantently ignores the fact that a buggy or badly made game is bad regardless of the consumer its just that someone with no knowledge of games or reviews may not know that games don't have to be buggy or badly made.

  • smelly #57 3 years ago

    @Grayvern: I know you probably wont read this.

    But try to apply your logic to wii music. A well made game, which was absolutely great for 6 or 7 year old market (and is a great fun 9/10 experience for them). And compare that against the crappy reviews it got, because for the likes of you or me - we think it's shit.

  • IronCladChicken #58 3 years ago

    I think he has a good point - There can't be that many gaming mags who regularly review Wii titles at all - How often does Eurogamer update the Wii section of this site (compared to the PS3 or XBox) - The vast majority of Wii games never even get a quickie review...

    I appreaciate that Eurogamer has become a 360 owners site rather than a multiplatform site, but I think the trend can be seen on most gaming sites - very little & fairly negative presentation of the Wii.

    Though I guess the target audience of video game mags/sites are 13-15 year old boys - who are more likely to own 360's - so maybe it makes sense?

  • IronCladChicken #59 3 years ago

    @smelly
    I don't think Mario is that hard tofigure out;

    1. Mario didn't look like a 'casual' gamer figure when he was first designed - 'hardcore' gamers in the eighties expected the same level of cuteness (e.g. Monty Mole, Dizzy, Magic Knight, etc...).
    2.Nintendo spent millions advertising Mario in Japan & the US at a time when the NES was so popular that 'casual' gamers considered Nintendo synonimous for all video hgames
    3. While the NES was released (with that Robby the robot add-on) in Europe it was largly considered a childrens toy (compared to Speccys, CBM64's & Amstrads which 'supposedly' helped with homework too :p ) - So when the SNES was released and Mario started to be really pushed in Europe (a little with the NES mainly for the SNES) he was already well known by the hardcore (who knew the platers level design to be second to none at the time) the marketingmachine had already been running for several years and was already very slick, shiney and professional - Just right for the casuals...

    Though I preferred Mario for a long time in the early ninties Sonic was far more popular in the UK and Europe.