Hatch, I'd say too much op/ed parading around as news is what has pretty much made me lose all interest in watching cable news. I have no use for Sean Hannity or Ed Schultz pretending to be journalists.

And it matters where your op/ed appears. Few people are going to care about an op/ed in a local paper or a biased rag. But put it in the Washington Post or New York Times? People care. Because those are big papers with influence who reach a lot of people.

I know I used to trust IGN a heckuva lot more than I do now (and it's not just for Wii reviews; I'm skeptical of all of their reviews). They get paid to be gaming journalists, not fanboys. Because you can just come here to N4G or visit any random blog for fanboys.

That's funny because these editorials are the only reason I have a slight interest in their site. I rarely (and i stress rarely) read or follow their reviews. I mainly use the site to listen to their podcasts and I get those through Itunes.

I do agree with you on cable news though, I can't be bothered with watching fox news and especially msnbc. CNN used to be the best source and even that is getting stale and biased.

"I think in a lot of cases these articles are good, because it does show that some gamers are not completely satisfied. The people who disagree with the articles, you show it in sales that you ARE happy with what nintendo is doing. However the wii has an audience that would like to play games online with friends and would like to see more effort in the graphics department."

Mario isn't an online game really. Lag and you die in a pit. It's all or nothing. Have you played it 4 player? Sharing a small moving platform and bouncing off each others' heads to get in the one open spot is hard enough. Lag there and you die.

More time on graphics/online is less on funamental gameplay. Games based on online play or suitable for it should focus heavily on that respect, like COD. Games like Mario should not.

This article doesn't stop with just criticism. It goes on to say a 10 dollar game is better. It is if you ignore the subtle focus on the level design and gameplay that people buy mario for. It's almost intangible to say "the koopa is perfectly placed so you can jump across the entire level" but just watch the super skills videos you unlock. They show you exactly what I mean. The speed runs in this game are genius.

This is entirely why it's not a revamped version of the DS game. If you watch those super skills videos there is nothing like it in the DS title, let alone 4 player multiplayer. Did you get to world 9? I doubt it, the levels there have unique hardcoded challenges that aren't even in the DS title. This is why people play mario, not to jump on platforms. We play mario to jump off the platform onto a koopa then wall jump onto the apparently out of reach pipe and find the alternate exit. Or to run through the entire level hardly touching the ground. If you can't see this element of the game then you honestly suck at platformers. Like you can even compare the shell powerup with the propeller suit. For starters, one sucks and the other is why I keep grinding 1-1.

You can't agree with cable news alienating people then make this a different class. Did you listen to that nintendo podcast? They basically call wii gamers morons. If you insult the viewers they will not watch. Like it matters to argue this, these sites are hurting enough anyways.

If you treat the customer like a moron they will leave. This article complains about the simple gameplay like hard video games are a pedigree of intelligence and this game is for morons. The title and article almost directly imply we're morons who bought the game entirely for mario when the post you criticized correctly stated Mario Sunshine bombed despite his presence.

Adults look for career success and or education (self-taught or formal) to demonstrate intelligence. When I play a video game I'm looking for something else. Mario is a test of timing, reflexes, and kinesthetic precision. If he can't understand this I know who the moron actually is. I do well enough in my own life that I don't need video games to prove my worth. But if you call people with these tastes morons on IGN they will not visit the site. I can't believe I have to argue this. Go listen to the nintendo podcast that pissed everyone off a couple months ago for an example.

I know the podcast you're talking about and I loved it cause I felt that it voiced a lot of complaints that many people had.

With the online component not being able to work. I'll take an example from a platformer similar to mario, Little Big Planet. That game revolves around it's online community. So much to the point that the developers have gone on the record and said that they won't make a sequel because they don't want to divide the community. Mario could work online and be a good experience 4 player local play confirms this.

"With the online component not being able to work. I'll take an example from a platformer similar to mario, Little Big Planet."

This is what I mean when I say you must suck at platformers. LBP has slow gameplay. The precision is starting and stopping at the right moments to avoid the moving spikes or explosions. Jump is not nearly as precise as in mario games and it's more Rube Goldberg meets platformers than old school SNES. There's no run button and the jumps are mushy. I like the game a lot but it's nothing like a Mario title. On top of that, there are many check points in each level and if you die you get tons of times to retry from the last check point.

Add any of these elements and mario is no longer an old school platformer. All of these help the game cope better with lag than a game where you press jump a quarter second too late and die in a pit then restart the level. LBP is not a platformer like Mario is. It's limited 3d and sometimes you have to stop to move in or out and solve a puzzle or position yourself. Even most of the pit traps in LBP involve grabbing stuff, not pure jumping! Most times close enough works on those grabs and jumps. Close enough is falling into a pit in mario.

When is the last time anyone stopped in mario? That's the point of the game - you don't! In world 9-7 they even play with this expectation when you have the fireflower. I won't ruin it but in that world get the fireflower and hit 1 to run afterwards. Hilarious.

If gaming has gotten so f*cked to the point where gamers are called "morons" for having the free will to choose the game they buy, I seriously think the next generation of gaming is going to get physical. This of course means every gamestop will have an 80% chance of being a fighting arena. I can hear it now.

*Some one about to buy a Wii2/PS4 but buys an XBox 720 instead*
*Random fanboy shouts*
"HE MAYBE AN XBOT, THAT BOY. BUT HE'S GUNNA GET A WHUPPIN' ANYWAY!"

I hope everyone above is armed for their next gaming purchase when the new generation is here. 7_7

"Right, instead you write a giant wall of text dissecting an article you apparently don't care about."

I care about the article, in that it is terribly written, terribly argued, and is demonstrative of the terrible journalism of IGN as a whole. Although that's slightly unfair on my part, as most gaming journalism in general is awful.

I just don't care what Daemon Hatfield, IGN Journalist, thinks about the last Mario game. You have not made a case as to why I should.

"adjective
1.full of pretense or pretension.
2.characterized by assumption of dignity or importance.
3.making an exaggerated outward show; ostentatious. "

Right, like saying "Gee, all those people love this game, but I don't like it as much as them, and I'm a much better person than they are, so they are WRONG and I am going to write a lengthy article on why millions of people are WRONG because only I am RIGHT".

"The only thing pretentious is the garbage post directly above mine."

Please, if you really thought my post was such garbage, you would point out where I'm wrong. You'd be able to point out specific instances.

But since I'm not wrong, you aren't going to offer anything like that because you can't. Hence, all you have is the vague assertion that I'm, like, totally pretentious for having the nerve to badmouth IGN.

"If you listen to their podcasts (nintendo voice chat, gamer scoop) you'll see that some of the staff are genuinely getting tired of the wii and what it has to offer."

As is their prerogative. But it's one thing to say, 'I don't like the new Mario game', and it's another thing entirely to say 'My opinion on the new Mario game is somehow more valuable than the opinion of millions and millions of other people'.

If you'd read my post, you'd have noticed that that was the issue; instead, all you saw was "Oh my god, he's insulting a multi-million dollar corporate webpage!" and rush to get your panties in a twist.

"I think it speaks loudly too that Matt C has shown some disdain in how nintendo handles the wii. Like it or not but Matt C has pretty much been the go to guy when it comes to nintendo news on the internet, he's been carrying the torch so to speak since the mid 90's. So if he is starting to feel fed up, I think it shows that the fanbase is definitely divided and some people expect more."

Um, focus. The article in question is not about the Wii, despite the fact that you think the Wii is totally spitting in your face and raping your dog or whatever. The article is not even really about Nintendo, specifically. The article is about New Super Mario Brothers Wii and how, like, Daemon Hatfield's opinion on this game is somehow more valuable than the opinion of nearly every other reviewer in existence.

"Lots of people take articles like these as being biased and written for hits but that's nonsense imo"

I'm not saying it's biased or written for hits; I'm saying it's terribly written and the opinion espoused represents a miniscule portion of the market, which Mr. Hatfield himself acknowledges in the article, and that as a result, it means a sum total of nothing in the grand scheme of things.

"The ps3 podcast complains about sony and the ps3 and Hillary Goldstein makes jokes about the 360 in the Three Red Lights podcast (three red lights is a jab at the RROD if you didn't know)."

Focus, you are getting way off topic. This would be on-topic if someone on the IGN PS3 team said something of equivalent stupidity, like, "Gee, I realize tons of other reviewers gave Uncharted 2 game of the Year, and it's sold a lot of units, but Uncharted 2 is a half-assed game because I said so!"

"Yes these people are journalists but they are also gamers"

You've never actually met any of these gaming journalist people, have you?

"I know I like to hear their opinions. If you watch CNN, FOX News, MSNBC they all have tons of shows where it's all opinion oriented. Why can't gaming sites have similar articles?"

No one is saying "This article should be taken down!" No one is saying "Oh my god, censor IGN for not toeing the party line!" If you think I said that anywhere, please, by all means, point me to where I said that the voice of the people needs to be silenced, man.

*I'm* saying that the opinions in this article are misinformed, inane, terribly expressed, and ultimately pointless. I also said that they were pretentious -- you have not offered anything to convince me otherwise.

"I think in a lot of cases these articles are good, because it does show that some gamers are not completely satisfied."

Which is fine. I'm not saying there shouldn't be articles like these; I'm saying this specific article was written by a hack.

"The people who disagree with the articles, you show it in sales that you ARE happy with what nintendo is doing"

Um, we're already doing that. Have you seen NSMBW's recent sales?

Also, being as this is the place where people voice their opinions on the articles offered, I voiced my views on the article offered. You want me to not do that? Well, I'm truly sorry if I interrupted your apparent circle jerk.

"Some people get so excited and hot under the collar when something ill is spoken of their console of choice"

Says the guy getting hot under the collar over someone speaking ill of his website of choice.

"It's OK to be unhappy with certain things in the market."

Just as it's okay to be unhappy with certain things on a website. Oh, wait, my apologies. I forgot that only IGN editors are allowed opinions in your little world.

I can see how we disagree on IGN, hatch, since we seem to visit their site for very different reasons. I've just always thought of them as being a legitimate source compared to a lot of other gaming sites. Op/ed after op/ed that aren't much more than flamebaiting disappoints me, the same way cable news now disappoints me.

(Here's one for the conspiracy theorists -- IGN is owned by Fox.
http://corp.ign.com/article... )

...and on the whole multiplayer thing...I do think bob has a point with lag (you have one bullet miss because of a collision detection issue online, and if you still have a whole clip; not so with jumping over a wide chasm, and Mario is much more a twitch jumper than LBP). But I think the bigger point is this -- not all games need online multiplayer. No one complained about Assassin's Creed not having online multiplayer.

Im going to play it later and make my final judgement of it. How many times do you need to play a rubbish game before it actually starts to grow on you? Especially as you payed 35pounds for it.