Viewing Thread:
"Anyone got the new NGC?"

Does anyone have it. If so what's in it and where did you buy it?

redeyez wrote:
future AAA games can
> only be 5% better than smash bros...!!! Any game with a very weak
> single player mode shouldn't score so high.

Thats right and i agree, i suppose the mag in time could lower the score because people may see zelda on 98% and SSBM on 95% and then buy zelda because it will better and they think this is the best game ive ever played and if SSBM is only 3% lower its going to be amazing i must buy that too.

As for close marks what about NOM changing scores out of 100 to out of 10.
I hate it. And when some one said about it to them they came back with a stupid comment sayign why dont we do it out of 1000 but then 2 games might get 997, i really gone off their marking scores.

burnout and SSBM are now on the same score when really they should be diffrent,whcih they would have been if they did it out of 100.

Every game will have people who loves it and people who hates it.

So far SSBM, and SSB, are the ones which really prove this as its a good game. It has a required taste with people loving or hating it.

When i first started playing it i hated it and was thinking there is nothing to it. Then i started playing it more and more and i found it to be around 90%-92% then i finished th eone player things and i was getting bored and then the only thing that kept me playing it was to get the trophies but only the ones that you need to do things like beat 5 men on cruel melee and stuff not the get under 5mins on clasiic and stuff.

the problem with the one player mode is that its all the same no matter which arena or characters your against. Then you have to do it with each person to get something but you know you can do it cause its so easy but its just time consuming.

I think if they make another sequal they should scrap the one player thing and the extra multiplayer options, but keeping the team battles and coin collecting and things. Then just make the one player mode really random with the only thing you can choose being the difficulty.

That way they can add loads more players and arenas to keep the game alive.

but thats just in my veiws other will strongly disagree.
Id give the game 91% overall.

Strafex wrote:
> cookie monster wrote:
> Mastering it is all well and good, but there is nothing to do.
>
> Adventure-sucks
> Classic-OKish
> All star-no point
> Event match-the games only saviour
> multi man melee-*yawn*
> Target test- Quite good fun, then you complete it...
> Home run contest-Quite good fun, but that gets boring as well.
>
> I see what you mean. It IS a multiplayer based game.
> Before I ordered it, I knew that the single player mode would get
> boring, but I didn't buy it for it's single player mode.
> NGC work in an office full of gamers.
> I have 2 brothers. That's why we see the side that you don't.
>
> Ok! Smash Brothers gets 95% if you have 2-3 friends/siblings to play
> against, 90% if you only have 1 opponent, and 80% if you're on you're
> own.
>
> I'm sure that everyone can agree to that. :-)


No smash brothers gets 90% in my book and yes I have played with 3 other players. I still think NGC messed up giving it 95%, why do you think mario got 96%....? It HAD to score higher than smash bros, now mario on it's own merits obviously warrants a high score but the point I'm making is that(in a mathematical sense anyway)future AAA games can only be 5% better than smash bros...!!! Any game with a very weak single player mode shouldn't score so high.

Agreeing isn't all that important. Just telling people their opinion is 'wrong'. That's kind of out of line.

Not many people around the town at the moment who play much, so i've not seen that much of the multiplayer. Better than one player. Can't say much more. The single player does get pretty lame after not too long.


Strafex wrote:
> By the way, what's SWRL?

Star Wars Rogue Leader, i assume.

It's probably just the pictures but the Mario game seems a bit well empty don't you think? It doesn't look as colourful as I'f expect either, bland even.

From watching that DVD in the previous issue don't you think it looks empty? Probably just me, I'll be singing it's praises once I get it, hell don't get me wrong I love the look of it, just seems bare.

Strafex wrote:
> I see what you mean. It IS a multiplayer based game.
> Before I ordered it, I knew that the single player mode would get
> boring, but I didn't buy it for it's single player mode.
> NGC work in an office full of gamers.
> I have 2 brothers. That's why we see the side that you don't.
>
> Ok! Smash Brothers gets 95% if you have 2-3 friends/siblings to play
> against, 90% if you only have 1 opponent, and 80% if you're on you're
> own.
>
> I'm sure that everyone can agree to that. :-)

Yep,i agree with that. I thought my brother would play, but hes too busy these days.

By the way, what's SWRL?

cookie monster wrote:
> Mastering it is all well and good, but there is nothing to do.
>
> Adventure-sucks
> Classic-OKish
> All star-no point
> Event match-the games only saviour
> multi man melee-*yawn*
> Target test- Quite good fun, then you complete it...
> Home run contest-Quite good fun, but that gets boring as well.

I see what you mean. It IS a multiplayer based game.
Before I ordered it, I knew that the single player mode would get boring, but I didn't buy it for it's single player mode.
NGC work in an office full of gamers.
I have 2 brothers. That's why we see the side that you don't.

Ok! Smash Brothers gets 95% if you have 2-3 friends/siblings to play against, 90% if you only have 1 opponent, and 80% if you're on you're own.

I'm sure that everyone can agree to that. :-)

cookie monster wrote:
> Pac_man its cool if he disagrees, everone has an opinion.
>
> But SSBM is just bad.

i don't like SSBM either...just not my cup of tea

Pac_man its cool if he disagrees, everone has an opinion.

But SSBM is just bad.