Dorkgasm Gonzo Is God

Disclaimer: I have completed Ratchet and Clank and have been able to put in about 6 hours of gameplay on Mario Galaxy. This is all just my opinion, but it is based on actual gameplay. PS. This is a rant and this is my blog. I don’t have to be rational and I can make wild accusations if I want to. -------------------------------------- A surprise to many gamers out there and to myself, Gamespot decided to grace us with an early review of Super Mario Galaxy . The game received what appears to be a well deserved 9.5 and is a serious contender for game of the year. With that said, there were a few things within the review of Mario Galaxy that irked me as they relate to the review done by Gamespot for Ratchet and Clank . Gamespot was one of a very small minority, and the only large media outlet, to give the new PS3 title, Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction such a low score. Their score of 7.5 implies that the title is average and while it may still be fun it isn’t anything terrible impressive or noteworthy. This is reviewer, Aaron Thomas’s opinion, and he is entitled to it. I guess where my issue stems from is that many of the things Aaron uses as faults in Ratchet and Clank are either praised in the review of Super Mario Galaxy, reviewed by Alex Navarro, or do not penalize the game as heavily as it did R&C. I am wondering, isn’t there any sort of uniformity between the reviews, some standards, on Gamespot or should all of their reviews be discounted based on the fact that they are one person’s opinion and don’t take any standard criteria into account? In the end, it’s the name Mario that pushes it over the top of Ratchet and Clank, making reviewers and players alike ignore any faults it might have and downplaying similar games that don’t have the same history. Both are cited for having poor stories despite Aaron Thomas not being able to find a good story if it bit him in the ass (R&C’s story is great) and both are penalized for this, which is fine (though it feels like Aaron made a bigger deal out of this than Alex did for Mario). The big issue comes in when Aaron said, “There are so many different gameplay mechanics that you get the sense that the developer didn't say "no" to any idea that was presented during the design process. Some of these mechanics add to the experience, but others feel as if they're here just because they could be.” He goes on to explain what most of these other gameplay experiences are but fails to mention that none of them last longer than a few minutes, if that, and all of them give the player a way to interact with the world outside of traditional methods. He faults the game for having too much… game. Mario on the other hand is also said to have many different gameplay elements, all which offer something to the game. This is done through six or more costumes and many different level mechanics. Just like R&C each of these change how the game is played, either offering new controls or interaction. Strangely though, here it is praised for the use of variety and keeping the game fresh. Why would this be such a positive for Mario and a big negative for Ratchet and Clank? It’s easy to point to the reviewers and say it is just their opinions, but this is one of those instances where a level of uniformity should play a hand. Beyond this both games are said to have great graphics, controls, and to be overall fun games. The big difference between them is that R&C is marked down for being to easy, which in the initial levels of the game it is (as is Mario), but ends up being no less difficult than any other Ratchet and Clank title. The series has never been an incredibly difficult experience. It has always been fun and accessible for anyone to play with the occasional challenge to keep you interested. So there it is in a nutshell. I think Aaron Thomas is on crack, I think Alex did a fantastic job on his review, and I think Ratchet and Clank deserves more respect and a higher score than what Gamespot gave it. I don’t know which one is better than the other as I haven’t finished Mario Galaxy, but I do know both games should be much closer in score with Ratchet being at a 9.0 on Gamespot’s scale. Obviously the name Mario pulls more weight with the mainstream media and much like Halo the faults the game has can be glossed over for the sake of the name, but all other titles that don’t have the same level of prestige need to own up to their faults. P.S.S. Read my Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction review coming soon!