If you traded in all your Wii Accessories...

*facepalm*

You said it yourself. They refuse to give most Nintendo games a high score, and often give the lowest of scores for said Nintendo games of all the big reviewers.
 
Save that facepalm for someone else.
SSBfreak said:
You said it yourself. They refuse to give most Nintendo games a high score, and often give the lowest of scores for said Nintendo games of all the big reviewers.

QFT:
WiiAssasin said:
The only problems with them is that they hate good Wii 3rd party games

Nintendo games =/= 3rd party games. They love Ninty's 1st party games and even claimed Zelda was the most influential series of all time. It seems you have yet to analyze it for yourself and have misconceptions based on what others have said.

I have finally figured out why MHTri was given a bad review. Turns out the reviewer never played the series before, and didn't expect the hardcore gameplay mechanics. If the one who did the preview reviewed it instead, the score would've been more fair.
 
I doubt it. I barely purchased any "extra crap." I find my Motion+, zappers, and other controller worth keeping. I did purchase this sport attachments for the Wii controller, which were kind of a waste of money. But I doubt Gamestop would take that anyways.
 
I read my friend's GIs for years, I know damn well how biased they are towards Ninty; 1st party and 3rd party. Moreso the 3rd party, but that's the worst kind of bias. Nintendo doesn't need every reviewer to give their games a high score, anyone who's not stupid or a hater knows their 1st party games are quality. Games like Mad World are the games hurt most by a gaming magazine's reviews; in other words, great games that aren't widely known about as well as being 3rd party.
 
GI called Madworld one of the Wii's best games of 2009. They put Zelda NES as #1 in their top 200 games list. No, they are not biased towards ninty (mostly it's towards the Wii itself.)
The problem with some of their reviews (and other reviewers in general) is that they stick to either only positives or negatives. If one doesn't mention the good points along with the bad or vice versa, that can be considered bias. Anyone who believes a site or mag is more biased than another better have proof or reasons to back it up.
 
I certainly hate 'em, but I don't have such a vendetta to make sure their total amount of subscribers decreases by 10 because of your's truly and such. Too lazy to find evidence of their ridiculous bias.
 
If you lack something to back up your claims, expect some backlash. I really don't like defending chain stores and magazines, but people seem to imagine Gamestop and GI to be plotting some evil scheme together.
 
Gamestop and GI to be plotting some evil scheme together.

WELL TECHNICALLY...

Gamestop does own GI, yeah? Or they fund it or somethin'. Too terrible memory to recall, too lazy to google, what with how little I care for 'em.
 
WELL TECHNICALLY...
WELL TECHNICALLY being owned by another does not make you part of an evil villain, be it scheming or plotting to control the industry or whatever you're imagining. That's especially true when you lack proof of those things. But yes, GI is owned by Gamestop. The marketing towards the customers is how it's still alive.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #28
So to get a little off topic; has anyone traded in a Wii lately, and how much did SSBfreak's nemisis or their competitor give ya for it?
 
^ Since used Wii's go for squat these days, no, you really wouldn't have enough. The WiiU will cost more than the Wii guaranteed, and used Wii + accessories wouldn't net you $250~, even.
 
Back
Top