Gamespot give Zelda:TP am 8.8

Post by **tr1p1ea** » Tue 21 Nov, 2006 12:38 pm

The fact is, if everyone says the love something, there is always someone who will come out and say that they hate it ... jus for the sake of being different.

Seriously 8.8 is just about as low as you can go with Zelda without recieving death threats. Thats how much people love the series

.

Madskillz · Post by **Madskillz** » Tue 21 Nov, 2006 4:32 pm

Ign gave zelda a 9.1 and had pretty much the same problems with it as gamespot. 8.8 is still damn good.

I dont think RedSteel should have gotten a 5.5 by gamespot, it is probably about a 7.

Post by **kv83** » Tue 21 Nov, 2006 4:47 pm

IGN gave zelda a 9.5

not 9.1

http://wii.ign.com/articles/746/746691p3.html

Arcane WIzard · Post by **Arcane WIzard** » Tue 21 Nov, 2006 5:06 pm

Summary > review.

coelurus · Post by **coelurus** » Tue 21 Nov, 2006 7:37 pm

Some stuff in this topic is weird

How do you expect to grade a game from a totally unbiased perspective? It's entertainment and it's simply impossible to discuss entertainment without any personal input. (How do you define gameplay?) One way would be to somehow design a system where visitors could post their impressions using some sort of meta review parameters and then a system would continuously compose the general impression into an averaged review. Problem of course is that 95% of the visitors are gonna be Zelda junkies.

Another solution is to don't give a crap and go buy the game if you believe it will be fun. What's a stupid number on a site like gamespot anyway?

Post by **tr1p1ea** » Wed 22 Nov, 2006 1:34 am

I think the problem people have is that the games deserves a nice score and it deserves to be reviewed by someone who isnt anti-Nintendo.

Its just that GameSpot should know better. They are a massive entertainment portal, who make lots and lots of money from being so ... being morons trying to get more hits.

Jim e · Post by **Jim e** » Wed 22 Nov, 2006 2:19 am

tr1p1ea wrote:I think the problem people have is that the games deserves a nice score and it deserves to be reviewed by someone who isnt anti-Nintendo.

Its just that GameSpot should know better. They are a massive entertainment portal, who make lots and lots of money from being so ... being morons trying to get more hits.

I think their logic was fine, He was critical before of the company, the system, and the game and he still gave it a high score.

Unlike a fanboy who would rant and rave endlessly about how this game deserves an 11, he pointed out things that he didn't like, Exactly what a reviewer should do.

Tr1p and kv83 have either of you played it all the way through yet? I haven't but here is excerpt from wiki.

The lowest score given so far is from GameSpot, which gave the Wii version an 8.8/10 score. The reviewer complained about the feeling of "tacked-on" Wii controls and dated graphics, a consequence of the game being designed primarily for the older Gamecube platform. The review is also notable for creating flame wars on the GameSpot message boards, which resulted in a later Soapbox posting sarcastically addressing the complaints[66]As well as with the graphics, some complained about the use of FM synthesis (MIDI) for the music rather than fully orchestrated songs, and the absence of voice-acting.

MIDI?

From the videos I saw, the graphics ARE dated. I keep seeing the intro video around and I wonder to myself why they haven't fixed those rendering errors on the bridge. Or why those 5 polygons are supose to equate a cliff.

And no voice acting? Im sure who ever they picked i'd have been pissed that they chose them, but still its the thought that counts.

It got what deserved...an opinion.

Post by **tr1p1ea** » Wed 22 Nov, 2006 4:19 am

Ummm, voice acting would ruin Zelda ... Dont people know how to read? Orchestrated music would be a plus though.

Also i knew that someone was going to bring up the point of 'he is harsh on Nintendo therefore him reviewing is logical etc...' That would be fair enough if the review was completely objective (or as much so as possible *especially* from a 'professional' games reviewer).

It appears to me that although some people say they prefer gameplay over graphics, they are really only just saying that.

If GoW wins GOTY, will the G stand for Game or Graphics?

KevinJB · Post by **KevinJB** » Wed 22 Nov, 2006 4:27 am

I really don't understand the uproar. An 8.8 seems pretty good to me - but even if it's a horrible score from Gamespot, it's just a review from one company. ???

Jim e · Post by **Jim e** » Wed 22 Nov, 2006 5:24 am

tr1p1ea wrote:Also i knew that someone was going to bring up the point of 'he is harsh on Nintendo therefore him reviewing is logical etc...' That would be fair enough if the review was completely objective (or as much so as possible *especially* from a 'professional' games reviewer).

Kotaku, These guys dry-hump nintendo and bash sony for a living. They gave a similar score, A-. So fanboys think A-, non-fanboy thinks B+. Seems reasonable to mii.

tr1p1ea wrote:It appears to me that although some people say they prefer gameplay over graphics, they are really only just saying that.

If GoW wins GOTY, will the G stand for Game or Graphics?

Graphics count to the quality of the game. Its foolish to think otherwise.

Would you prefer to play the Basic Homescreen Adventures of Link [1][2][3] or Spencer's Zelda which has recently sported Zooming effects, wicked quick Scale2x, and even 3d perspective. I'm positive the basic ideas behind both games are similar, but it doesn't feel quite as good does it?

Post by **tr1p1ea** » Wed 22 Nov, 2006 6:00 am

I never said graphics arent important. I like pretty graphics as much as the next guy, in fact i wish the Wii was more powerful graphically. That said, they certainly dont turn an ordinary game into an awesome one.

Jim e · Post by **Jim e** » Wed 22 Nov, 2006 6:34 am

tr1p1ea wrote:I never said graphics arent important. I like pretty graphics as much as the next guy, in fact i wish the Wii was more powerful graphically. That said, they certainly dont turn an ordinary game into an awesome one.

Maybe, but they do turn an ordinary game into a great game. I point to many fighting games as my reference on this. Mortal Kombat would be nearly as loved if it weren't for the Special moves or Fatalities. Both in gameplay are utterly worthless and yet so often are they used merely for the enjoyment of seeing them.

Post by **tr1p1ea** » Wed 22 Nov, 2006 6:47 am

I dont think that special moves or fatalities fall exclusively under gaphics. They are gameplay features.

Take StarFox Adventures on GC. It wasnt even a 2nd gen GC game and it had sweet water effects, realtime lighting//shadows, cool particles and reflections and of course real-time fur mapping (one of the only games of the entire last generation to do so?) -- the game was still ordinary.

The xbox shooter Black is a similar story.

Fact is GoW is not a revolutionary game. Its a standard multiplayer tournament shooter with an extremely tacked on sp experience. Because it has pretty graphics that seems to turn it into some kind of masterpiece.

Because Zelda:TP's graphics are great for last gen, but not next gen ... that makes it only an 'ok' kinda game.

Arcane WIzard · Post by **Arcane WIzard** » Wed 22 Nov, 2006 7:46 am

I think the problem people have is that the games deserves a nice score and it deserves to be reviewed by someone who isnt anti-Nintendo.

It doesn't deserve anything. But before thinking bias is inherently evil, imagine what it would mean if even an anti-Nintendo nerd gave it a high score like an 8.8...

Post by **tr1p1ea** » Wed 22 Nov, 2006 8:11 am

He isnt anti-Nintendo ... he is anti-Wii ie; he likes Nintendo games like Zelda but has scoffed the Wii's motion controls at every opportunity.

I know that have been using anti-Nintendo/anti-Wii interchangingly when i shouldnt have been.

The 'Wii' aspects of the game are precisley what he is bashing.