My thoughts on TNEs' Fed Force Review

    Seems like the main reason Shawn has problems with Fed Force was because of it being titled a "Metroid Prime" game more than the intrinsic value of the game'. But I don't think that's a good reason to rate the game so poorly. This is a game where you don't play as Samus, and where it's very obviously focused on multiplayer which no other Metroid game is(closest was Echoes but as a side thing). It's NOT Metroid Prime 4 or Metroid Prime 3DS, it's Metroid Prime: Spin-off.

    Would it be fair to rate down Mario Tennis for not being a platforming Mario game? Or Super Paper Mario for not being a Paper Mario RPG even though if you bought it, you're well past the point of expecting a Mario RPG?(since SPM was never advertised as such). Same thing is for Fed Force, if you wanted a normal Metroid Prime game, review a normal Metroid Prime game instead, but for people that are interested in Fed Force in the first place(aka the people this review is supposed to reach out to), they're already reasonably not expecting a normal Metroid Prime game since they at least know what they're getting into.

And as a side note, with the review starting off by mentioning the hate Fed Force got in the beginning, and acknowledging the "hate bandwagon", I feel the reviewer may have been biased by the initial reactions, being desensitized to it and let it subconciously cloud his judgement from looking at the game in a more fair or neutral light from the get-go.  In fact, the whole fact this review is precluded on the game not being a normal Metroid Prime game, aka what the internet hated it for, makes me feel there is some validity to that assumption.

I mean, I have no problem with people being miffed about FF for not being Prime 4 or whatever, but that's in a more general context. In the context of what Nintendo is/should be doing with the Metroid franchise as a whole. That context has a very small place and relevance to a review about a game where the point of the review is to judge the game on its own merits firstly.

Additionally, the fact the reviewer did not try multiplayer, AKA the biggest draw to the game is doing the game a great disservice! Merely extrapolating what multiplayer is *like* based on single player and not actually, y'know playing it, is like reviewing the game based off of a trailer or a lets play, which I can do myself. It shows a lack of integrity to ignore or criticize a feature, the main feature of a video game, without doing unto it what you do normally with video games...y'know play them? It's the most disappointing part of the review. and what makes me lose all respect for it. It's like if someone reviewed NSMBWii based off of the single player only, and then because it's so barren and boring he tries *thinking* about what multiplayer is like and so judges multiplayer based off of only theorizing rather than playing.

With reviews, I trust that the person actually plays and has experience with what he's talking about, and has thoroughly covered the game enough he can speak from experience alone. This is so I can trust his/her judgement. Theorizing about aspects of games without playing them is the kind of thing I expect to see from forum users pre-release, not from professional reviewers, who I expect to try every feature out for themselves.

 Finally, lol at Blast Ball being summarized as basically, "yeah it was fun but it's not METROID", which is especially surprising because the entire review is basically, "it's not Metroid so yeah that sux". I'm fine with the reviewer finding general problems with Fed Force and even giving it a 2/10 or whatever, but this is one thing that's inconsistent...does Fed Force suck because it's not like Metroid Prime or because it just plain sucks and the actual game intrinsically overall is bad(which I'm fine with)? If the latter, then shouldn't Blast Ball be terrible?shouldn't Blast Ball be terrible?