Hot Coldman
Banned
Using any number as 'for the fans' is fucked to me. If a game is bad, the fans are going to be the first to know.
Skyward Sword review thread [Newest Reviews - Cubed3 10/10, GC: A, AusGamers: 7/10]
- Thread starter EatChildren
- Start date
60_gig_PS3
Banned
im playing TP for the first time now. The motion controls make it a lot more fun to me. The little shake of the wiimote to unsheath your sword and the sound the controller makes just makes it awesome.
Metacritic of 95. Because everyone else is insane but you.
Honestly though, I don't know why clowns like this guy aren't straight up perma-banned. It's obvious he's trolling for reactions.
That or he's really trying to prove a point and he wants Skyward Sword to be bad/poorly reviewed.
Even with the huge (huge...) number of gripes I have about this game, I can't deny that's there's still a good, fun game underneath the flaws.
Chuck Norris
Banned
6 scale system is silly
Mineshaft_Gap
4077th
The media loved Twilight Princess and they loved the Wind Waker.
I was very disappointed in both games. So these reviews mean nothing. In fact my favorite Zelda game is the one with the most mixed reviews. Majora's Mask.
I was very disappointed in both games. So these reviews mean nothing. In fact my favorite Zelda game is the one with the most mixed reviews. Majora's Mask.
crazy monkey
Banned
nincompoop
Banned
6 Jak 2
5 Great
4 Good
3 OK
2 Just for fans
1 Bad
0 Piece of shit
-1 Mirror's Edge
Better?
IrrelevantNotch
Banned
I want all games to be reviewed harshly, but obviously that ain't happening. All I can do is praise the few who actually show some amount of discerning when writing their reviews
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
Holy shit.
I'm enjoying this thread a lot. Not at a "haha stupid fanboys" level (I'm certainly looking forward to Skyward Sword tomorrow!), but at a more deeper, general, universal enjoyment.
You sure can, buddy
Hot Coldman
Banned
Harshly? You mean fairly, surely.
Thunderbear
Mawio Gawaxy iz da Wheeson hee pways games
I'm a massive Zelda fan but I am glad that some sites are calling out that the Emperor is naked. It is a very recycled formula and to play it with 10 year old graphics is less than what we deserve. We should be playing a Zelda game right now that looks as good as the Wii U tech demo.
I was thinking of playing it on Dolphin but even at a higher resolution it still looks so dated. And graphics do matter to me in getting immersed in a game. You can hate my opinion but it's mine to have.
I'm enjoying a game a lot at the moment with very classic gameplay, Rayman Origins, but if instead of its gorgeous visuals it looked like a PS2/Gamecube era game there's no way I would have picked it up. What makes it sad is that Zelda should be at the very top of what gaming has to offer. Atmosphere, graphics, gameplay... everything. Yet we get a very old looking game that plays very similar to old Zeldas except with some nice motion controls. I can't agree with the perfect scores because it's far from perfect. For a game to be close to perfect, it has to excel in all areas. Zelda doesn't excel in visual presentation.
A few years from now when I am playing the first Wii U Zelda game, then I might look back I say "this is what we should have had 4-7 years ago." But perhaps by then the next-gen consoles will have raised the bar even more and Wii U Zelda might be plagued by all the bad things about games visually that we accept today because there's nothing better.
I equate it to giving artists tools. Wii developers have less tools at their disposal than PS3/Xbox360 developers. When next-gen comes around, developers will have even more tools at their disposal. Having more tools allows developers/artists to more freely express their vision. The less they are restricted by technology, the better experiences we will have.
I was thinking of playing it on Dolphin but even at a higher resolution it still looks so dated. And graphics do matter to me in getting immersed in a game. You can hate my opinion but it's mine to have.
I'm enjoying a game a lot at the moment with very classic gameplay, Rayman Origins, but if instead of its gorgeous visuals it looked like a PS2/Gamecube era game there's no way I would have picked it up. What makes it sad is that Zelda should be at the very top of what gaming has to offer. Atmosphere, graphics, gameplay... everything. Yet we get a very old looking game that plays very similar to old Zeldas except with some nice motion controls. I can't agree with the perfect scores because it's far from perfect. For a game to be close to perfect, it has to excel in all areas. Zelda doesn't excel in visual presentation.
A few years from now when I am playing the first Wii U Zelda game, then I might look back I say "this is what we should have had 4-7 years ago." But perhaps by then the next-gen consoles will have raised the bar even more and Wii U Zelda might be plagued by all the bad things about games visually that we accept today because there's nothing better.
I equate it to giving artists tools. Wii developers have less tools at their disposal than PS3/Xbox360 developers. When next-gen comes around, developers will have even more tools at their disposal. Having more tools allows developers/artists to more freely express their vision. The less they are restricted by technology, the better experiences we will have.
So what, you don't want any game to get a score higher than 8?
butter_stick
Banned
I know it's the ultimate NOOB response, but I like it too. I like how I can just waggle like an idiot and kill things. Makes me feel happy and better about myself.
SecretMoblin
Member
I also really hate the reasoning "if you're a fan of the genre..."
Why would fans of Platformers want to play a mediocre Platformer? Either a game is good or it isn't; this guesswork as to who would like the game is silly and pointless.
FunkyMunkey
Banned
You honestly have not even touched the game if you think the graphics are 10 years-old. I'm playing the game on an hd lcd tv and it looks glorious. Better than Mario Galaxy.
Calling a game out on bullshit and not giving a perfect score is one thing, of course. But slashing the score for the sake of controversy and bullshit is another.
Also, you should really, you know, play the game, before pretending to know what you're talking about.
Isn't a coincidence that after the 75 from GS, a 10 less would be a bait for more hits.
I think that this kind of practices should be stopped, and the first thing that we should do, is not take so much importance.
Also, Metacritic should ban this kind of reviewers that only want to lower score for hits or because the game has too much score.
After this, another website will score Skyward Sword 55 and the cycle will be repeat again..
I think that this kind of practices should be stopped, and the first thing that we should do, is not take so much importance.
Also, Metacritic should ban this kind of reviewers that only want to lower score for hits or because the game has too much score.
After this, another website will score Skyward Sword 55 and the cycle will be repeat again..
Some men just want to see the world burn.
I'm purposely staying clear of reviews to keep the experience "pure" (not because it's Zelda... I do it for most games I'm jazzed for). That said - all the teeth-gnashing in this thread made me skim the VB review.
Here's the thing:
People have different tastes.
It doesn't matter if he's trolling. If it's bad journalism. If it's just link bait.
In the end - his review reads like an opinion. I'd say the only poor choice he made was revealing his bias against Nintendo's philosophy of gaming.
I'm a big fan of Nintendo. I love the way they construct experiences and consoles. I think it's very distinct from most if not ALL developers (note: that doesn't mean better).
The review's thesis is basically: this game just proves that Nintendo is still Nintendo. Zelda gets a 6.5. Nintendo gets a 6.5. (Note: all this insanity about 6.5 being a "decent" score is bullshit. Everyone knows the weighted system. Yes it should change. But it hasn't, and it's disingenuous to claim that 6.5 is anything but a bad review score considering the context).
So if you think Nintendo as a company of the Wii as a system deserves more than a 6.5. You'll probably think Zelda does too.
This guy clearly believes Nintendo (and by extension everything they make) is out of touch with modern gaming sensibilities. Same way some people think Studio Ghilbi's films are out of touch... or that Dan Brown is a pandering writer.
His issue is with the game AND the company itself. So if you LOVE Nintendo. Or at the very least think they're more then a 6.5 game company. Feel free to mark the VB review as "not intended for me" and move on.
This is why there are colors in the crayon box. Because different people like different things.
Here's the thing:
People have different tastes.
It doesn't matter if he's trolling. If it's bad journalism. If it's just link bait.
In the end - his review reads like an opinion. I'd say the only poor choice he made was revealing his bias against Nintendo's philosophy of gaming.
I'm a big fan of Nintendo. I love the way they construct experiences and consoles. I think it's very distinct from most if not ALL developers (note: that doesn't mean better).
The review's thesis is basically: this game just proves that Nintendo is still Nintendo. Zelda gets a 6.5. Nintendo gets a 6.5. (Note: all this insanity about 6.5 being a "decent" score is bullshit. Everyone knows the weighted system. Yes it should change. But it hasn't, and it's disingenuous to claim that 6.5 is anything but a bad review score considering the context).
So if you think Nintendo as a company of the Wii as a system deserves more than a 6.5. You'll probably think Zelda does too.
This guy clearly believes Nintendo (and by extension everything they make) is out of touch with modern gaming sensibilities. Same way some people think Studio Ghilbi's films are out of touch... or that Dan Brown is a pandering writer.
His issue is with the game AND the company itself. So if you LOVE Nintendo. Or at the very least think they're more then a 6.5 game company. Feel free to mark the VB review as "not intended for me" and move on.
This is why there are colors in the crayon box. Because different people like different things.
EmCeeGramr
Member
Finally, someone from a video game website is pointing out that the Wii has underpowered graphics.
Wii has had a free ride for far too long!
Good lord, how have we been so blind for so long!
Are you seriously trying to justify that blog passed off for a review just because it's negative? That's just... I mean... You can't be serious.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
Would your body be ready for a Zelda game with graphics that put the Witcher 2 to shame?
DisenLedZep
Member
He is actually calling other people fanboys... that's how his mind works.
Maybe his standards for review integrity is just that low, you never know.
RurouniZel
Asks questions so Ezalc doesn't have to
Is the B button trick ever explained in game? That might be part of the problem.
IrrelevantNotch
Banned
Are you seriously trying to justify that blog passed off for a review just because it's negative? That's just... I mean... You can't be serious.
Oh lordy you guys are hilarious. Please point me in the direction of a proper review, if you will, so I may compare and contrast the two. (My hypothesis in difference: review scores)
I thought you were ignoring me ;>
Answer my question.
I know every site takes game reviews on their own scale and each reviewer is an individual but I simply cannot accept that the two most recent reviews have such a gulf between them.
I didn't want to believe that some sites post extremely negative reviews for page views and to make a name for their new gaming section and that others post perfect scores because of money hats or access, and I resisted for a long time and argued against it but the evidence is overwhelming.
I didn't want to believe that some sites post extremely negative reviews for page views and to make a name for their new gaming section and that others post perfect scores because of money hats or access, and I resisted for a long time and argued against it but the evidence is overwhelming.
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
It's the amount of copies Rayman Orgins will sell.
No, I'm just going to let you keep that opinion, since every single other SS review is rated higher than that and I know you'll pull the "fanboy" card if I mention anything over an 8. If your definition of a good review is a negative review, then so be it.
But I will say that one key factor to a review is that it, you know, reviews the game. Even the GameSpot review actually reviews the game. This horrid excuse for a review has half of the text focusing on reviewing Nintendo. You would would need to be either a total moron or a troll yourself to not see that it was nothing more than a troll.
Biggest-Geek-Ever
Member
I think most Rayman gaffers bought that many copies themselves.
plagiarize
Banned
it's about minecraft.
it isn't about minecraft
i can't believe some of you are bitching about a review score... AGAIN. i thought after the Uncharted 3 nonsense you'd all take the higher ground this time.