http://nsidernews.com/sony-sponsored-mario...rse-experience/

xD I'll trust my IGN and GameStop thank you much very and not some site/writer I have never even heard of. By the way, where did you guys find that he is sponsored by Sony? I skimmed the review to avoid spoilers so maybe I didn't see the memo .

That guy's freakin retarded. I'm sorry. (Well, actually I'm not)

That's STUPID.

I agree with a few points, but if you write things like that its an ARTICLE not a review. Reviews should keep your opinions out on everything but the game.

It is obvious that its sponsered by Sony, not only by the logo, but by one of the last sentences thats like "while compared to Ratchet and Clank now available for PS3..." XD

I've never heard of that site before, probably good reason.

Meh, SOME of his criticisms made sense, but others were completley bias.

The worst part is that he contradicts himself on multiple occassions. At one point he talks about how great the controls and gameplay are and then later he says something about them being sloppy or outdated or something. And to keep hammering the fact that it's not going to be graphically superior to PS3 or 360...no shit, ya think. I'm sure all of us with a Wii that were anticipating this game were expecting it to have the best graphics possible for this generation...yeah right. Wow, even if it wasn't "sponsored by Sony", I'd still say this guy is a terrible and highly unintelligent writer. And don't get me wrong, I'm not biased against Sony either; but that guy is a fruity bastard.

bias. i'll stick to ign, and my own personal playing experience of this amazing game.

Everything there is true.

Three words: Sponsored by Sony.

It's incredible how people can sell their dignity so easily. I won't even comment on this.

I lol'd very hard.

Sony just can't accept the fact that they went from the most popular console to the worst ever.

AAAGGGHHH!!!! Why in the heck did that guy even WASTE his time to write that. It's nothing but a flat out attack on the Mario game series AND the Wii.

Someone needs to get on that guy's case -- and FAST!

I srsly lol'.

Looks decently written.

blah blah blah blah whine whine whine omg sum douche rated our game bad whine whine whine even though nobody will even base their decision off one review whine whine whine

agree;

So basically they're saying SMG's on the Wii so it must suck.

Wow... didn't know that Sony like to fight dirty. I'm not a fan of SMG but that review was total BS.

I feel sorry for Ratchet and Clank. A fantastic game that's going to get utterly eclipsed by a blatantly superior product. Oh well, who cares? It's a single review. Nothing to get your panties in a knot about.

Thats just wrong

someone punch him. What a stupid review.

Its not like this is new or anything...

Nintendo and Micrsoft do the same thing too.

Big deal. -_-

I agree with most of the stuff the guy said anyway. I would have told the world without money from Sony.

Lol, bias.

Fans may claim that the graphics are good “for the Wii,” but that argument quickly grows tired. There’s clever art design on many of the planets Mario visits, but given the vastly superior quality of the graphics in a game like “Ratchet and Clank: Tools of Destruction,” currently available for the PS3, “Galaxy” looks old fashioned and lifeles

It's interesting to see that he couldn't even end this review with a complete word or period. lol

Oh wow. This guy is completely insane.

If their going to write and extremely bias review, atleast take out the sponsored by Sony line.

anyone else starting to pity sony?

And forgetting an s in lifeless >_>

In before you fail/giant indifferent smiley pictures

No, I pity Nintendo because they're tricking old people and women into buying the Wii and are calling it a 'Revolution'.

olol that was the most biased thing I've ever read.

He has disgraced all Bens. :\

I find it even funnier that it was sponsored by Sony, which you hate, and you "love your PS3 dearly." So he basically picks apart the games shallow parts, and declares it a bad game? How stupid. He should probably be fired, and move to another country before he gets attacked.

And how can you compare SMG to Ratchet and Clank? In SMG you collect stars and it's a platformer, Ratchet and Clank you shoot things and do whatever. You can't compare apples and oranges.

I lol'd at this.

Because that's all you can do. Being angered at this one little review doesn't get you anywhere.

I always thought that Ratchet and Clank was a platformer.... I'm pretty sure it is.

Whenever I see it, it seems to be a run 'n gun style of gameplay, just shooting up whatever you can, and watching things explode. I'm not sure though.

Even then, there's still no way you could compare them. The Wii is too different to be compared to the other systems, and the same goes for games, even multi-platformers.

The guy really doesn't have any invalid points. The story is simplistic, as are the 2-player and motion sensing add-ons. The graphics are as bad as he makes them out to be.

I agree that the game is incredibly fun and that the pure joy most people get from playing it is enough to warrant a positive review, but that isn't enough to completely blind people to its flaws.

It's odd:

"In a transparent add-on to do something with the Wii-mote, players can collect “star bits” by pointing at them. But they aren’t integral to the game and pointing at them is a chore."

Um...we kind of need them to move on in multiple spots in the game. Did he even play this game? o_O

It's one thing to be aware of a game's faults but it's quite another to blow them completely out of proportion. Heck, I believe that the Halo franchise is unoriginal and vastly overrated but I'm not going to pretend that it doesn't have the best online multiplayer out there.

You know, that man has his own opinion, and I respect that.

But what really grinds my gears is that 'Sony' sponsors it. That blows my mind away on how desparate Sony is trying to be, what are they trying to pull here? I've lost a lot of respect from Sony, and this probably drops my respect for them below zero.

It may be just a small review, nothing much. But with Sony behind it, it really seems to piss me off, at least take it off, and I would be fine with the review. Hey, if he looks at it that way, go figure, feel free to share it to everyone, that is fine with me. Even though we probably look at it in two completely different perspectives, I am fine with that, everyone has an opinion. Sorry for being redundant, just trying to get that through anyone's head that reads this.

I wanna see the artical!

You. People. Are. IDIOTS.

I mean it. You're all morons. The site is sponsored by Sony, not the article. That, and just because something is sponsored by a company doesn't mean that they endorse the views expressed in it or even know what is being written.



Any of you with even a rudimentary knowledge of programming or HTML should be able to understand most of that, and what it tells you should be quite clear. The Javascript proves that there is absolutely no way that Sony knew that their sponsorship would be placed on that particular article.

For those of you not as fluent, I'll break it down for you:
First, "sponsor" is generic. This is actually good design, so they don't have to change a thing every time they get a new sponsor. That shows that they did not go out of their way to insert a Sony image into this article.

Next, take a look at the URL for the offending image:


What's that? No "Sony" in the image? That's because it is also generic--it retrieves a sponsor from doubleclick's server, which most likely stores current sponsors.

There is simply no way for one particular banner to have been placed in one particular article with that piece of Javascript, so your article has no case. It was coincidence, plain and simple. End of story.

---

Also, I can't believe that whomever wrote that piece is actually being published on your front page. The grammar and diction were atrocious, and it was so painfully geared towards fanboys (despite claims to the contrary) that I could hardly believe it wasn't satire.



Am I the only one who finds this incredibly ironic? The Variety.com article isn't "credible" and doesn't present "[honest] criticism," because it actually doesn't praise the game--and then, in the article attacking a perceived bias, the author goes on to say that it's "impossible not to find [SMG] objectively groundbreaking and superior"? Someone obviously doesn't know what the word "objectively" means.

I urge whomever is in charge of the front page to "encourage" the author of this travesty of journalism to find some other way to contribute to the site.

What you say seems to make sense. I've done some HTML coding in school, but not the complex ones like these.

*Picks up gun* Let's go kill this moron but don't shoot anyone else.

yay for your first post!

Doesn't really matter how desperate Sony gets, you can't stop the Wii machine.

It really makes you wonder if he, you know, actually played the game at all.

But I don't read Variety for game reviews.