For ign lovers and review watchers

[Chaosblade77]

Good score, but their complaints were poorly placed. Either the graphics are a lot worse than they seem to be or IGN is crazy. It's easily one of the best looking (not the best, but it's up there) Wii games released so far. To give one of the top 5 in graphics an 8.5 seems a bit ridiculous.

That's just one example as well... there were several other places I disagreed with them. But still, a 9.5 is a great score for the game, even though they scored Melee higher and said Brawl was better.

 

[Namenlos]

It pisses me off when they say Wolf, Falco and Fox are just a "swap model" with identical attacks and so on. Honestly I think Wolf doesn't even compare to the other 2.
9.5 is nice thoug

 

[WeXzuZ]

IGN are pretty realistic there. At first I was like "WTF? 9.5 only?" Then I read it through and it makes sense by far. IGN > Gamespot, IMO

 

[Darkraid]

But some of the graphics do suck. For example, the old pokemon model looked like crap.

 

[Rash]

It pisses me off when they say Wolf, Falco and Fox are just a "swap model" with identical attacks and so on. Honestly I think Wolf doesn't even compare to the other 2.

Yeah, that kind of bothered me too.

 

[soviet prince]

How because Melee has better characters, better stages, and better moves? I think u'd best look at yourself, sir.

......................no it does not

 

[OrlanduEX]

IGN are pretty realistic there. At first I was like "WTF? 9.5 only?" Then I read it through and it makes sense by far. IGN > Gamespot, IMO

I wouldn't say so. I don't think Gamespot gives games crappy scores for the sake of it. I just think that they are realistic. Twilight Princess really did deserve an 8.8 if you ask me.

I believe Gamespot will give Brawl a 9 or 9.5. Nothing less.

 

[Jellybelly]

On one hand I agree that the Wii should/will always recieve a lower graphics score because it's hardware isn't up to scratch. But on the other, the Wii should be marked on the fact that it simply cannot compete, for the Wii, brawls graphics are pretty good.

I'm happy with the review, roll on marth 9th.

 

[Rash]

On one hand I agree that the Wii should/will always recieve a lower graphics score because it's hardware isn't up to scratch. But on the other, the Wii should be marked on the fact that it simply cannot compete, for the Wii, brawls graphics are pretty good.

Just because a system doesn't have the same graphical capabilities as its competition doesn't mean that it should always be at a disadvantage when it comes to rating the graphics. When you rate a Wii game's graphics you do it based on the capabilities of that system, not the capabilities of the Xbox360 or PS3.

If visuals were always rated based on a "new standard," then this whole time the Wii and DS would be getting slapped with 5s in the graphics department every time.

 

[Drake3]

Most of their discrepancies are legitimate. The loading times, for a next-gen console, are just terrible.

 

[Drclaw411]

WTF 9.5 no false gay false false false retarted poop intercourse-with-worthless fail epicloss.

lol jk. really good review actually. I would have given a 10/10, but a 9.5 is nothing to laugh at, and from IGN!

I think most likely this game will only be shunned by GameSpot and GameInformer, as they tend to suck balls at scoring games.

 

[Drclaw411]

9.5 is a great score for the game, even though they scored Melee higher and said Brawl was better.

they did the same thing with Halo 3. Said it's the best of the Halo games, yet it got the lowest score....

 

[mthegreatone]

i've never been so pumped to get a game before. the video review alone just gets you really excited

 

[PXG]

It pisses me off when they say Wolf, Falco and Fox are just a "swap model" with identical attacks and so on. Honestly I think Wolf doesn't even compare to the other 2.
9.5 is nice thoug

Me too. Also, when they say is the "same". I hate that too. Don't fret, they aren't that good at the game and probably haven't gotten that deep into to it to really understand it.

 

[Evelgest]

Please, there's no such thing as a perfect score, yet reviewers keep giving 5/5 or 10s.. 9.5 is good enough. Loading times are long, and that's a fact. It warrants a non-perfect score.

 

[Desu.]

Please, there's no such thing as a perfect score, yet reviewers keep giving 5/5 or 10s.. 9.5 is good enough. Loading times are long, and that's a fact. It warrants a non-perfect score.

How long are we talking about here? One minute, two minute? I can do two minute but more than is a definite let down...

 

[PXG]

What bugs me about IGN, is how nit picky they are sometimes.

 

[Evelgest]

I dunno, I like the attention to detail. Apparently some loading times during SSE are like 20 seconds, which is bearable, but unnecessary for a 3rd generation console game.

 

[jellis186]

they did the same thing with Halo 3. Said it's the best of the Halo games, yet it got the lowest score....

Scores are on a graded scale, so a a 9.5 today is 10 a couple years ago.

 

[Luteyi]

I dunno, I like the attention to detail. Apparently some loading times during SSE are like 20 seconds, which is bearable, but unnecessary for a 3rd generation console game.

Twenty seconds is still a litttle poor. Desu you must really have some patience....

 

[RedrappeR]

If you honestly can't see the difference between Melee and Brawl, you're an idiot.

Maybe you should learn about context before typing something out you backwoods asshat. It would do you good to shut up if you have no idea what I'm talking about-- especially being an idiot who believes everybody on this board possibly comes from the same ****ing country.

And you have the right to whine and *****, but it doesn't make you "cool" or interesting or worthwhile as a cynic, it just makes you an annoying little turd.

Nobody loves you, die in a fire, read what my post is pertaining to before you open your ****ing mouth.

 

[Killer Tree]

Scores are on a graded scale, so a a 9.5 today is 10 a couple years ago.

QFT. Because Final Fantasy 1 got some score doesn't mean FF9 or w/e is worse.

 

[Papapaint]

What bugs me about IGN, is how nit picky they are sometimes.

That's the job of a reviewer.

As a reviewer, you can't look at the game and say "Well, this part was disappointing, but this part was awesome, so we'll forgive the first part."

This applies to several things in Brawl. e.g:

1. Graphics. The graphics are beautiful. 60 fps. Great backgrounds. Great models. But there are times, especially with some of the pokemon and ATs, that the graphics are kinda "meh". Unfortunately for Brawl, the game as a whole looks so good that those small imperfections really stick out. It's not that they think the game has bad graphics--in fact, they keep talking about how beautiful it is--it's that it's inconsistent. I still think 8.5 is unduly harsh, but meh.

2. Online. Every time someone gripes about online, someone else jumps in and says "You should be glad we even have online!" That's now how reviewing works. Yes, a game has online. How does it match up to other games which have online? In the case of Brawl, very, very poorly. To be honest, the wifi "with anyone" may as well be a restricted mode with slightly more advanced computers. 2 minute time matches... not too impressive in this day and age. Lack of ranking system, even though Sakurai had his reasons, is also a mark off.

3. Single Player. I'll admit, I haven't played SSE. It's definitely interesting to me. But to be honest, it really does look--as IGN said--like a platformer with arena-fighting controls. Adventure mode was pretty gimmicky in melee, and I'm hoping SSE doesn't turn out quite that way. In some ways, though, it seems like Nintendo Fanfic or something.

4. Loading times. Next-gen games shouldn't have loading times like smash. Halo 3 and COD:4 had some rough loading times, but they were masked really well by on-screen activity.

This was a well done review, and I'm quite impressed, to be honest. 9.5 is a good score these days from IGN.

Oh, and as for the fact that they said it's better than melee, yet scored it lower...

Sequels have a lot to live up to. It's better, but is it an improved formula or a whole new take? A good example would be Halo 3 vs Call of Duty: 4. Halo 3 improved on its predecessors, adding to it, taking from it, etc, while CoD:4 was a whole different game compared to its predecessors. Smash seems to be somewhere between the two extremes.

 

[mthegreatone]

Most of their discrepancies are legitimate. The loading times, for a next-gen console, are just terrible.

one could figure that it can't be helped, if there were load times on a CARTRIDGE-based game yeah i'd be pretty nasty about it, but for disc-based games a console's disk drive will have to read from the DVD sooner or later.

3. Single Player. I'll admit, I haven't played SSE. It's definitely interesting to me. But to be honest, it really does look--as IGN said--like a platformer with arena-fighting controls. Adventure mode was pretty gimmicky in melee, and I'm hoping SSE doesn't turn out quite that way. In some ways, though, it seems like Nintendo Fanfic or something.

what automatically came to mind was the exact inverse of what you're referring to. if anyone remembers the little game called "Streets of Rage 3" there was a versus mode built into the game, but it was essentially the same walking mechanic as the story mode and you just fight another player...IOW not very well implemented.

 

[Tofu Beast]

why did they take so much off for graphics

 

[LWknight]

why did they take so much off for graphics

agreed. but in all, i have to say that this is one of IGN's better reviews.

 

[Puddin Master]

That's weird. Melee had a higher score on thier site. Melee got 9.6, but Brawl got 9.5. Heh. At least they think the graphics were good. I kind of agree with them on the graphics part, except the lacking in areas part.

 

[Lord Viper]

That's weird. Melee had a higher score on thier site. Melee got 9.6, but Brawl got 9.5. Heh. At least they think the graphics were good. I kind of agree with them on the graphics part, except the lacking in areas part.

9.5 eh, well at least it is better than a 9.3 that they threaten to give it. I do think that they rated the Graphics wayyy too low. The game looks better than Mario Galaxy and they rated that lower than that. =/

I must say, some things in this world don't ever make since. This is just like Soul Calliber 3, better game than Calliber 2 but rated lower???

 

[corban123]

NOOOOOOOooooo, the opening english is gaaaaaaaaaay, i want the japanese opening i liked the latin

 

[spindash]

NOOOOOOOooooo, the opening english is gaaaaaaaaaay, i want the japanese opening i liked the latin

Uhhh... I'm pretty sure that it's just a different track being played over the opener. Notice how the intro goes by a lot faster then usual?

Besides. This version of Final Destination plays when you fight Master Hand and he's coming in during the beginning of the song maniacally laughing. They just put it in for the sake of being absolutely epic. And it worked. It worked REALLY well.

 

[Lantz]

9.5 is a pretty good score. No game is perfect.

 

[brawlmaniac]

It got a 9.5.. not bad not bad

 

[Problem2]

8.5 for graphics? Did they think this was for PS3 or something? It looks like IGN refuses to ever let up on the fact that the Wii is the weakest graphics console of the three. This really confuses me because they turn the other way when it comes to the graphics of VC games. They always compare the VC games to the potential of the hardware it originally was played on, but Wii games are being compared to what Xbox360 or PS3 play...

The overall score looks familiar to me too... but how... oh yeah, it's only on at least 20 other great games that were stamped with this general score. IGN in general is too afraid to breech 9.5.

EDIT: Oh yeah... there was something else that bugged me. They keep saying that Brawl is overall faster and has more depth than Melee. They also talk about the inclusion of "air dodging" as if it is something completely new. >_> Did they even play Melee?

 

[volbound1700]

bump to front to read

 

[volbound1700]

I agree with reviews that Sakurai missed out with the characters... there could have been more characters and that will be what haunts brawl.

 

[RedMage8BT]

Should've got 9.7

I learned some new things from Brawl's video review though!
-Fox, Falco, and Wolf are just model swaps
-Air Dodging is new to Brawl (I swear that I don't remember that being in Melee at all!)

 

[NotEz]

dude, Wolf is not a clone of falco or fox

the people at IGN are idiots

 

[RedMage8BT]

dude, Wolf is not a clone of falco or fox

the people at IGN are idiots

I was kidding... I thought that'd be pretty obvious.

 

[volbound1700]

Too be honest I am sick of the clone stuff... even Mario and Dr. Mario where not fully cloned. Dr. Mario was a little heavier and his moves had more hit back. Mario was faster and comboed quicker.

Young Link was lighter but his down thrust was more powerful then Link's.

I mean even the clones where not fully clones. Pichu was nothing like Pikachu.

 

[RedMage8BT]

Too be honest I am sick of the clone stuff... even Mario and Dr. Mario where not fully cloned. Dr. Mario was a little heavier and his moves had more hit back. Mario was faster and comboed quicker.

Young Link was lighter but his down thrust was more powerful then Link's.

I mean even the clones where not fully clones. Pichu was nothing like Pikachu.

Saying things like that calls the definition of "clone" into question. If clones exist, then there must be an existing model on which we can base other clones. I'd say Pichu/Pikachu, Doc/Mario, and Roy/Marth are decent examples of this. Clones are just characters with essentially the exact same moveset, regardless of attributes. Sure, different attributes such as speed and weight go into how "cloney" the character feels, but the definition of clone is based on the moveset only (A and B moves)