I’d be shocked if you played Ocarina of Time when it released in 1998 and didn’t think it was an exceptional, ground-breaking game.I think so, particularly the 3D games. BotW and Ocarina of Time are good games but nowhere near the conversation for greatest of all time.
Same can be said for nearly any franchise then, Drake’s Deception launched in 2007 so there will be 30 year olds writing reviews for Uncharted now who were 15 when the series started.make a poll cause i can 100% tell you the answer is yes, nostalgia is a strong drug amongst games media
damn that's scary to think about, guess we'll see how UC5 turns out lolSame can be said for nearly any franchise then, Drake’s Deception launched in 2007 so there will be 30 year olds writing reviews for Uncharted now who were 15 when the series started.
Yeah it has major flaws that i’m sure even the studio who worked on it got surprised by the scores. I mean the lack actual dungeons and weapons breaking.yes, breath of the wild is wildly over rated just because it was an open world zelda game.
I think so, particularly the 3D games. BotW and Ocarina of Time are good games but nowhere near the conversation for greatest of all time.
Bullshit.I think so, particularly the 3D games. BotW and Ocarina of Time are good games but nowhere near the conversation for greatest of all time.
I did, but I don't think recognizing what is good about these games means ignoring what wasn't, and OoT was not as tightly paced or designed as Link to the Past and it was still figuring out how to make a lot of these things work in 3D. It was innovative and ambitious and it influenced a lot of what came after it, but that doesn't mean it was or is the peak of gaming.I’d be shocked if you played Ocarina of Time when it released in 1998 and didn’t think it was an exceptional, ground-breaking game.
How was OOT not as tightly paced as Link to the Past?I did, but I don't think recognizing what is good about these games means ignoring what wasn't, and OoT was not as tightly paced or designed as Link to the Past and it was still figuring out how to make a lot of these things work in 3D. It was innovative and ambitious and it influenced a lot of what came after it, but that doesn't mean it was or is the peak of gaming.
And Breath of the Wild was largely addition by subtraction, it took away a lot of the hand holding and structure and created something very open that was satisfying to explore but it was deeply mechanically flawed with some decisions that were just insane and pointless and it could be really frustrating. 8/10 is generous.
I’d be shocked if you played Ocarina of Time when it released in 1998 and didn’t think it was an exceptional, ground-breaking game.
We'd have to have a conversation about what that means, but in general I think games like System Shock 2, Doom, Another World, GTA4/5, Tetris (esp. Tetris Effect), Portal 2, etc. These are master classes in game design.out of curiosity, name a game that you would consider among the "greatest of all time"
That's true, in 1998 Ocarina of Time was a fantastic achievement.I’d be shocked if you played Ocarina of Time when it released in 1998 and didn’t think it was an exceptional, ground-breaking game.
We'd have to have a conversation about what that means, but in general I think games like System Shock 2, Doom, Another World, GTA4/5, Tetris (esp. Tetris Effect), Portal 2, etc. These are master classes in game design.
Nintendo IPs, Rockstar releases, Naughty Dog joints...these are all sacred cows in the industry
Wind waker is all charm little substanceYep.
Same as Mario games. Or many other franchises.
Still waiting for a good Zelda since Wind Waker. And yes I've played and beaten Breath of the wild.
Yeah, reviews like those doesnt happen anymoreThis is what happened when ONE reviewer gave a less than glowing review to a Zelda game and it still got a 8.8...
Blast from the past: The crazy reactions to 8.8 - General Discussion - Giant Bomb
I found these just now. It's hilarious the insane reactions! It makes the Uncharted 3 8 review seem like a non-issue. Why weren't there multiple articwww.giantbomb.com
Trial and error design is not a flaw of Another World, it's literally the job exploration and experimentation that makes that game work. Flawless.GTA5? a game with ABSOLUTELY HORRENDOUSLY bad controls, super linear and handholdy mission design, aiming on console that was so bad that they had to include an option to hard lock-on to enemies and an open world that's basically only decoration without much to do in it other than running around doing nonsense or going from mission to mission...
the fact that you'd say that a game like that deserves to be recognised as one of the greatest games of all time over Breath of the Wild, now that's an opinion that is WILD.
then Another World. janky controls, bad gamedesign throughout that necessitates you knowing what to do before playing the game in order to not just get instakilled by random shit.
and you say you don't take reviews seriously because BotW gets its high scores? like, wow...
I personally loved GTA5 and Another World btw. but these games are deeply flawed in so many ways.
Yeah, reviews like those doesnt happen anymore
I'm 100% sure that reviewers talk about the game during the review process and influence each other analysis to reach a consensus.
You dont see divise games from Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, FROM Sofrware and etc.
And every game that tries to deviate AN INCH from the norm (High on Life, Callisto Protocol) gets divise scores, 'cause they dont know what they should do with them.
Even most indies nowadays are all made from the same formula: roguelike, metroidvania or slow, emotional storytelling. Even them are too scaried to deviate from the stablished formula.
I stopped reading your posts after I saw your avatar.
The higher profile a game is, the more likely it will be given to someone who is fanatical about that genre to review.
There are also a lot of indie games with no reviews or games with tons of "laurels" from various indie awards that get bad reviews. For an indie game to get reviews at all, it either must be something that manages to get a lot of hype or someone actually likes it enough to review it.This happens a lot with smaller games as well. The people who run to review a smaller more niche game is probably someone more super into that type of game to begin with, which is why so many smaller weird indie games get such high review scores. If you look on Opencritic you’ll see like a huge gulf of AAA titles from god of war until like xenoblade or horizon which is just indie games with 5-10, 90+ reviews.
I am thinking mostly from the Gamecube and Wii generation. Yes, Wind Waker was an achievement in graphics and deserves its high scores, but Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword did bring nothing special to the table imo. They are not 90-95+ games. It felt more like, here is a brand new zelda, it will score 10/10 automatically. yes some Zelda games are really awesome while it seems that others just surf on the brandname.
Do Review publications have a tendency to overscore Zelda games? What's your thoughts.
Hey, ST smoothed out some of PH's issues, had a better story/setting, a kickass theme, and the best Link/Zelda relationship of the whole series.also, Zelda Spirit Tracks is pretty damn meh and it sitting at 87 at MC lol.
https://www.metacritic.com/game/ds/the-legend-of-zelda-spirit-tracks
Yes 100%
Naughty Dog, Rockstar, Nintendo have a special bonus.
I played it at launch. I wanted more LttP so I was a little disappointed. It still felt ground breaking and exceptional.I’d be shocked if you played Ocarina of Time when it released in 1998 and didn’t think it was an exceptional, ground-breaking game.
Yeah, mid-high 80s which is very good but not amazing. For having played the game myself, I can say that mechanically, it's one of the better shooters on the market. There's just no content which was forgivable on release but not anymore.DUDE... Have you seen the review scores for Halo Infinite?
Yeah, mid-high 80s which is very good but not amazing. For having played the game myself, I can say that mechanically, it's one of the better shooters on the market. There's just no content which was forgivable on release but not anymore.
We're far from the days of 92+ scores of the original trilogy and it being a GOTY contender that outsells almost everything that comes alongside it.
Good thing those games are reviewed under pressure of hurting relationships/ties with the publishers and have to approach its exposition to it's audience in a inherently fake ass way.
Just look at a random playing the game for half a hour.
This happens a lot with smaller games as well. The people who run to review a smaller more niche game is probably someone more super into that type of game to begin with, which is why so many smaller weird indie games get such high review scores. If you look on Opencritic you’ll see like a huge gulf of AAA titles from god of war until like xenoblade or horizon which is just indie games with 5-10, 90+ reviews.
I bet if High on Life wasn’t tied to gamepass it would have reviewed a lot higher as well. A lot of outlets only reviewed it because it was part of gamepass and had a marketing deal, but if it were left up to only Rick and Morty fans it would have the type of reviews its getting on steam