Skyward Sword review thread [Newest Reviews - Cubed3 10/10, GC: A, AusGamers: 7/10]
- Thread starter EatChildren
- Start date
Nobody's making a big deal about the score. It's the review that's crap. Look on the last few pages for quotes from it.
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
Does he count for Metacritic though???
IrrelevantNotch
Banned
You poor, poor fool
plagiarize
Banned
six of one, half a dozen of the other.
be honest with me, have you read every review of the game? if you read the crap review because it gave the game a low score, then you got got.
some guy doesn't like it. he probably doesn't like chocolate either, but he's allowed to. we should only pity him because he's can't derive the same enjoyment from Zelda titles that we can.
i'm not sure why you think i'm poor. i think you think i don't watch community, which i do, but then your user name has the word Notch in it too... so... maybe you're talking about minecraft?
Yes. You're clearly handing it much better by saying that the review is good just because it's negative. If only we could reach your level.
IrrelevantNotch
Banned
Yes. You're clearly handing it much better by saying that the review is good just because it's negative. If only we could reach your level.
I don't harass you guys for liking reviews that rate it positively. :\
I meant poorly misguided for thinking people would react differently in this thread. It was a half joke.
Biggest-Geek-Ever
Member
Don't worry, as long as Netflix is around, there's always hope.You should watch the show.
Please, anybody.
It's not about him not liking it. It's about the fact that it does a very poor job of reviewing the game. I didn't even care about GameSpot's score. At least that was an actual review of the game. This one... Look, read the review. It's hilariously bad. The first page barely even talks about the game!
Slurpy2k20
Member
You're absolutely delusional if you think there's a chance that might be the case. The Wii-U is coming out BEFORE, possibly much before, both those systems. It has a frikkin iPad as a controller. And if history if any indication, it will be priced below the other 2, and that will be a big factor. And this is Nintendo. Yet somehow, with all this in mind, you expect it to be on par from a pure performance standpoint? Not gonna happen. It will be a substantial leap from the Wii, and this will be enough for me.
ShockingAlberto
Member
Do you think I'm a particularly irrational person? I think the review was kind of bunk, too. It's a manifesto on why the Wii is terrible.
Which, okay. Also an opinion. But that does not make it one immune from criticism and, moreover, does not prohibit discussion about the merits of the review.
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
As someone mentioned or to the effect, those people(or most of them) are as transparent and agenda-ful as those that focus on the extremely praiseworthy scores/reviews.
What you need to do is look at the points or nonpoints the reviews are making and determine whether it is relevant to what you know you'd look for and/or be able to look past in the game.
With all that said, a 65 review just makes me laugh hysterically.
plagiarize
Banned
whether it's badly written or not, it's still his opinion of the game. i don't see any reason to make fun of his writing abilities. does that make sense?
i'm sure lots of the positive reviews are terribly written too, but that doesn't invalidate them either. i used to do the same shit, but i got over it. i hope to help other people get over it. even the best game has its detractors. they aren't wrong, they just like and dislike different stuff.
their opinion isn't any less relevant if it's poorly worded, but obviously the doesn't mean its relevant to you. i can tell from that review that i won't dislike the game for the same reasons the reviewer did... so it tells me i will probably like it more than he did... so it achieves that at least.
if your annoyed that this review might be weighted the same as others and harm the metacritic score or something like that... i don't get that (and i'm not saying that's whats going on here).
but is it really the worst written review of the game? are we making fun of it because of that, or because we want to belittle the most critical take on the game?
i'm not supposing to know the answers to those questions, but i hope you'll ask yourself them honestly.
i'm not calling anyone irrational, i just think the review speaks for itself. it's a really weird take on the game, and it's very apparent to anyone that doesn't share those opinions that those criticism aren't going to apply to such a person. so i think it has merit. the text conveys the strange reasons that reviewer didn't like it. normal people can comprehend that such complaints won't hold true for them. if a reviewer doesn't like a game, i want to know, and i want to know why.
If you see someone who thinks that a review is good just because it has a good score (such as the people who were using the IGN review to show why the GameSpot review is bad, despite the fact that the GS review did a MUCH better job of reviewing the game than the IGN review), you're free to harass them. Hell, you SHOULD harass them.
Seriously, you think that every game should get nothing but negative reviews. That makes no sense! Explain your reasoning, or I'll just assume that you're a troll.
A good portion of the review has nothing to do with the game. That's the funny part of it. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm not complaining about it; I'm laughing at it and and the reviewer's comments defending it.
milkyjay20
Member
Okay, I know what you are saying. But....
There is a far gap between a review that reviews a game and a review that complains about a game/company.
This review was utter trash if you regarded it as a review, and acceptable if you consider it opinion.
Fimbulvetr
Member
plagiarize said:
And?
Ideas have never been above criticism and its not like anybody is saying he isnt allowed to have his opinions.
I haven't read the review but if true these comments are grounds for the review to be dismissed. Somebody should write to Venture Beat and then Metacritic informing them of our concerns.
IrrelevantNotch
Banned
Here's the thing, I don't assume that people like a certain review or reviews because of its score. If I did that would make me a monumental fuckwad shitface. But hey, you wanna assume I like those reviews because of the little numbers at the end? Fine. I don't care. Just don't ever assume I would apply that same shitty line of reasoning against somebody else
Don't say anything until you've read the "review" in question. Otherwise, you're just generalizing.
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Eh? Must have missed that, last time I checked it had plenty buttons and analog inputs on it... Not that it means anything at all when discussing the system's power.
Um yeah? GameCube and N64 was Nintendo also. Ok, Wii too. Not exactly a trend. Not to mention the priorities of all first parties may have changed after the Wii...
I think he mostly wants it to be in the same ballpark, capable of competent ports and what not, rather than left in the dust altogether like the Wii.
Give it a decent amount of ram and relatively modern architecture and it will fare much better than the Wii did, even if the others are still more powerful. At least somewhat cut down or underperforming ports should be possible as the rule, rather than the exception it was on Wii, while with supporting standard shader technologies or whatever else, the look could be much more faithful versus what they did on Wii which was to altogether remove effects instead of bother making TEV equivalents, if they ported.
Unless Sony/MS catch some upcoming tech I'm unaware of that will make DX10-11 type stuff ancient in comparison, with all new development processes etc.
I don't think this is a great review or anything, but I'm glad he made his opinion on Nintendo, Zelda TP and Skyrim clear before I got to his thoughts on SS proper.
Its very close to that. He's talking about Ghirahim and his tongue move and then mentions homoeroticism I think or something like that. Then in the comments but not in the review I think he mentions that he doesn't think the game should have an E rating or something to the effect that he was doing a public service by talking about it in his review. But even beyond that the review is not a review, its just not.
plagiarize
Banned
and who cares what some badly written review thinks? maybe this isn't damage controlling a negative review, but it seems that way. fans of the franchise are attacking a negative review. maybe it's all just an annoyance at a lack of critical ability, but all that's being achieved is driving hits to his site.
why is anyone select quoting the stupidest criticisms? why are people looking for crap like that? to undermine a review that they'd already decided was irrelevant to them?
you want better reviews, don't go after the negative ones.
Jeff Gerstman got so much shit for his 8.5, but it was his Kane and Lynch review that showed the REAL problems. a shitty blog angling for hits is not whats wrong with reviewing.
i mean, if we're really trying to sort out reviews that is, and not trying to discredit a negative review of a Zelda game, which basically speaks for itself and doesn't need any real response. it's an incredibly fringe opinion, and it clearly marks itself out as such.
your concerns? seriously what the fuck are they? some crazy/homophobic guy didn't like the game! don't count his review! it might make the game get a lower metacritic score than X and Y!
And liking it just because it's a negative review is better?
A review needs to be as fair and balanced as possible. The reviewer in this this case hates Nintendo, the Wii, and motion controls. In other words, he represents the group with the least interest in buying the game. Does that honestly seem right to you?
EmCeeGramr
Member
Going back a few pages, the whole "Nintendo had a totally finished Twilight Princess on hold for a year just because of motion controls and the Wii," idea really does fall apart once you actually visualize a main console Zelda game at Nintendo offices just sitting there for a whole year with nobody working on it except to add a different control scheme.
It's Zelda. Of course.
IrrelevantNotch
Banned
*facepalm*
ShockingAlberto
Member
And that the control scheme itself took a year.
Lord Ghirahim
Member
EmCeeGramr
Member
Miyamoto and Aonuma, for a whole year: "Yeah I guess it's good enough, don't really want to bother changing anything."
*sigh* Fine. You win. We're pissed and worried about the Metascore and not just laughing at how bad it is. Please teach how we should be acting, oh great mature one!
plagiarize
Banned
sure. why not? Zelda games are one of those things that you regularly hear it said that *everybody* should play. i'd even go so far as to agree with that statement. the appeal is wide ranging enough to make it a safe recommendation to all.
if someone at the fringe plays it and doesn't like it, they're still allowed to review it. real critical analysis, if you want such a thing (and this review isn't it) doesn't only come from something's target audience.
i'm not Zelda's target audience. i never have been, but it's reviews from outside the target audience that got me to try Wind Waker, and i loved it. it's reviews from outside the target audience that got me to try Fallout 3.
what use is it to us to only review Zelda games for fans of Zelda games? i want to see reviews from that group, from your average mainstream person, from a perspective of critical analysis... from as many perspectives as possible.
you may be laughing at it, but others are pissed quite clearly. i never said EVERYONE was doing anything. people are calling for it to be discounted from Metacritic... and i'm not trying to be mature or anything... i'm happier since i moved past that crap (and i dabbled in it as recently as AvP) and i think others might be too. that's all.
Yeah, but remember that the control scheme at E3 2005 wasn't the same as in the final game, so they spent at least six months.
Slurpy2k20
Member
Yes, I realize the pad had buttons. My point was that its an intricate, and costly controller with a massive screen. The logical conclusion would be that they have less budget to spend on tech-specs when setting a price target. and keeping the thing at a reasonable price. I thought my meaning was obvious. How much do you think this controller will cost Nintendo compared to something like the Dualshock for Sony? It will probably cost them more than the console itself, with all its sensors, built in hardware, and touchscreen. So yes, the controller means everything when it comes to the potential ceiling of other aspects of the system. Its only logical to assume they'll need to keep the costs of the console itself as low as possible.
IrrelevantNotch
Banned
Jesus, no kidding, right? There are plenty of people who are on the fence about this game. What use is it to them to read the words of a man or woman who jerks it to Zelda lore, or even just gets excited at the mention of its name?
Hmm.. I guess I'll give it a shot. 65 from Venturebeat is heartbreaking though.
I have no idea as i'll be picking it up in about... 9 or so hours from now.
Lemme check the demo once more to see if it's not A+B at the same time.
There's definitely a speed up in the demo though, that's for sure.
EDIT: Ok yes, push both A and B at the same time and it definitely goes faster.
plagiarize
Banned
well they would learn why the fans like this one. which is useful to them. just as it's useful to see why other people *don't* like it.
i don't think either opinion is worthless, but the 98th opinion praising it from the 98th member of the target audience is worth less than the 1st opinion from outside it.
That's not the same. Those people probably entered from a neutral standpoint. This guy obviously didn't.
But, I'm sorry. I'll just leave you to your stance. i just don't like generalizations like the ones you're making.
Slurpy2k20
Member
I see, so every positive review of Zelda is automatically part of its 'target audience', composed of biased Zelda fanboys. Every negative review is 'outside' this reality distortion field. Got it.
Is VentureBeat reputable? Honest question, since the only thing I know about it is that controversy over Dean Takahashi's preview of Space Marine, and then this.
Like all games, people on the fence (like me, since I've never taken a real interest in the series to be one of those people who looks forward to every single one) like to learn about why a game is enjoyable, what makes it unique, why it is memorable. Do they want to hear the problems as well? Yes, of course. A good review will cover both and make a reasonable conclusion as to why the positives weigh over the negatives, or vice versa.
...
No. That's not what I meant at all. He HATES those things. It's one thing to not like them, but he HATES them. It's like asking PETA to review a slaughterhouse. He entered from a biased point of view. IGN and Famitsu did the same, but from the opposite end. It's not about a fucking score. It's a poorly written review that does a poor job of reviewing the game. I don't give a shit about the score, or any score for that matter.
God fucking dammit.
I doubt it. This is the first I've heard of them, I was joking around.
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Not seeing how you can love WW only. The formula remained similar enough since OoT. How could you even tell the reviews that persuaded you were of people who didn't like other Zelda games and thus weren't the target audience? I mean, if you liked WW, you liked a combat system, puzzle solving, exploration, etc, that has been done similarly since OoT. Because if you didn't like those things you couldn't like WW, nevermind the different art style and the hit or miss aspects of the watery setting.
Liking more Zelda games doesn't make one a fanboy with a worthless opinion to anyone else. People became fans because of the games' level of quality. Zelda games with lesser quality do get criticism and many more people skip the lesser entries too going by the sales numbers.
That someone liked OoT and/or WW and/or TP or whatever other entry, doesn't mean he's a fanboy and that his opnion of SS isn't worth as much as someone's who is clearly irrationally hateful of a faceless corporation and inanimate objects like game consoles, enough to let it all spill in a review that spends as many or more words on such things that are completely irrelevant to the product reviewed. That just tells me that if the game was from a different company he could well have loved it, and thus it's not a review of the game, just a statement of what side of the console war he's on. Which is his right indeed, but no less silly and, well, irrelevant to any gamer, including other people like him who didn't need a review to tell them not to acquire it, they had already decided that for themselves too.
The notion that it's worthy of praise for no reason other than being harsher, from people like that guy who hasn't even played the game and therefor that is the only merit he could possibly see in a piece about an unknown to him quantity, while deciding so many others praised it just because they're fans (implying a fan, who again became a fan due to the quality of the games, is a fanboy, someone who doesn't care about quality after all, just the brand) is hilarious.
IrrelevantNotch
Banned
Who are you trying to fool? Anytime someone says something positive about this review you get rage hardon. If anything, I'd say you care about its score more than anyone in this thread.
Fimbulvetr
Member
Many people, apparently.plagiarize said:
So youre trying to call people out on their kneejerk reactions by having one yourself?plagiarize said:
Or go after all of the badly written ones regardless of how the reviewer personally felt? I mean, that seems like a much better third option, imo.plagiarize said:
Hell, circlejerk reviews are generally called out on GAF. To the point where some of the worst cases (IGNs infamous oscar worthy GTA4 review) have become shorthand for bad reviews.
Yes, the willingness of certain people to call attention to bad reviews is partially dependent on preemptive inclinations, but it works that way for both negative reviews and positive ones.
The shit Jeff got for the TP review was very absurd, agreed. But this situation isnt really the same, like, at all. Nor is it the same as the UC3 controversy. In both cases the issue was over people crying about the scores without even reading the text of the review; with the few people who did have legitimate concerns being drowned out by a cavalcade of reactionary posts.plagiarize said:
The Kane and Lynch case is also different, I believe, as that was due to the publisher threatening to pull moneyhats/privileges. Its still stupid and wrong, of course.
Could you restate this more clearly, please?plagiarize said:
butter_stick
Banned
The laws of averages state that to some people, SS will be a shit game they hate. One or two reviews from people saying they hate it is perfectly natural. They're not invalid just because they don't like the games and were always unlikely to.