The Great CT - Community Thread

Socar

Active Member
You know what, you guys are right. Why should it ever matter what game engine Nintendo uses at all so long as they know what they are doing to make games fun and so long as they know how to do things effectively and efficiently.

If anything, Nintendo using third party engines further proves just how they use it better than those third parties out there that fail to even use it properly.

Ok so I'll take that custom engine thing back. Still though, many would still prefer custom engines over licensed engines for various reasons, that's a given.

so where is mario Odyssey innovative where botw is not?

mario looks good, but I don't see anything that changes the game.. the most innovative thing is maybe the hat, but i have seen similar mechanics before, so how is that mroe innovative than, for example, creating updrafts by burning fields?
We have only seen a glimpse of it so you can't judge by that small footage.

Also didn't you just say this?


yes.. some "chefs" will just go to the grocery store and grab a hamburger helper and a pound of hamburger meat.... then maybe add some extra cheese or sour screm that isn't called for on the box... but that isn't nintendo... and just ebcause nintendo shops at the same store, doesn't mean nintendo makes the same things
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
As for the argument on why I feel custom is better than said third engines, because third party engines don't have limits and if they don't have limits, more things can be added which can either worsen the performance or can have some game design flaws that make you wonder what the whole point of using that engine was to begin with.
More things can be added if the designer wants to add them. There's no relation between adding elements and the engine.
 

DarkDepths

Your friendly neighbourhood robot overlord
Game Maker as of now isn't capable of doing Botw but it sure as hell is capable of doing Terraria.

Also, why are you suddenly against the notion that custom engines are bad? It gives a better control over the game development rather than the developers learning how to use third party engines and such.
I've never said that custom engines are bad. It needs to be decided on a case by case basis. But increasingly, as games get more and more complex, it makes less sense to make your own engine all the time.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
Last night was rather strange...

After martial arts, a bunch of us got together to grab some drinks and food at one of the local brewery restaurant establishments, and originally I wasn't going to order food, and instead just get a drink. Since this is a local brewery, I, of course opted for...Jameson on the rocks, because...reasons. I also decided to order food, in this case deep fried cheese curds, which are always a good time. They of course gave me too much, and so I could not finish it all since I was going to be going to bed not too long after getting home.

But anyway, I get home, shower, dick around for a little bit, and head to bed around 11:30pm. At around 2:30am, I was awoken to feeling rather ill, which for a short time I wasn't sure what it is, and then when I got up did it sink in that I was having a rather bad stomach ache. I also had to go to the bathroom, so with those two things on my mind, I made it to the bathroom for the next 15 minutes, while I wait for the inevitable moment where my delicious cheese curds would be become part of my next statistic in my unusual and ridiculous times when you puke. After burping up a few times, nothing happened, and then started to feel slightly better, and I had some tums lying around, so I finished up, took two of those, and went back to bed.

I awake to the feeling as if nothing had occurred last night, almost it was a weird dream, and I've been pondering this all day because: Who the fuck takes a shit at 2:30 in the morning?!
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
You know what, you guys are right. Why should it ever matter what game engine Nintendo uses at all so long as they know what they are doing to make games fun and so long as they know how to do things effectively and efficiently.

If anything, Nintendo using third party engines further proves just how they use it better than those third parties out there that fail to even use it properly.

Ok so I'll take that custom engine thing back. Still though, many would still prefer custom engines over licensed engines for various reasons, that's a given.



We have only seen a glimpse of it so you can't judge by that small footage.

Also didn't you just say this?
I wasn't the one who judged, you were, I called your judgement into question
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
Quite.
My phone got dumped in the water a while back and I can't speak into it unless I put it in speaker mode, which is an awful comopromise for all parties involved.
And I'm not ready to buy a new phone yet.
well in your case you could just use headphones with a mic, which are usually included with a phone
 

Socar

Active Member
I'm foaming at the mouth right now.

View attachment 3357 View attachment 3358

I hope those reviewers who gave the game anything less than a 90% get cursed with only hearing a fire alarm going off for the rest of their lives.
Game journalism at its finest. Like I said...Jim has been a Nintendo troll recently. I'm going to assume that because Nintendo has that youtube copyright issue, Jim will even go as far as to try to give low scores for Nintendo games...I mean the guy himself is encouraging people to steal Nintendo products hypocritically.

Forget the score. The actual reason of what he sums it up is the most annoying thing. Did anything what he said made any sense because I sure as hell can't figure what he meant.

I feel bad for Nintendo. All they ever did was find ways to make money and not the other way around which is making people upset....and I will ask this again, why can't youtubers just upload some other crap to make money out of instead of ranting at Nintendo for blocking their said videos?

Heck we don't even know if Nintendo is the mastermind for all of that. I could be one of the youtubers bots out there causing havoc.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
How could anybody say the world of breath of the Wild is empty and soulless?

That is like saying "Fight Club is devoid of style" or "Game of Thrones lacks the guts to kill off characters" or "Pantera was a band that lacked both a hard edge and interesting riff work."

It is like saying "Juegosmajicos and themightyme are clearly eat to live, as opposed to live to eat"

It is like saying "Aki is not a fan of marijuana" or "Mattavelle is an obvious technophile and Google fanboy"

It is like saying "Koenig is relentlessly optimistic" or "Fried Shoes is a shameless attention whore who wants to see his own face everywhere"
 

Socar

Active Member
Ok um...I didn't want to do this because well...I am not sure if this is a forum policy thing or whatnot but I want to know if I can give you a link to a game I made a year ago and just give me your feedback of the game.

In case you need to know the name of the game, its called Math Trance and its free and its on both Android & ios. So if you like, you can check it out.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.qneuro.mathtrance
 
How could anybody say the world of breath of the Wild is empty and soulless?
Yeah, that really got me too. It's literally the exact opposite of what virtually every other review in existence has said. This is not something that you can defend by saying it's a matter of opinion. The world is either rich and vibrant and chock-full of all kinds of amazing shit, or it's empty and soulless; it can't be both to different reviewers.

I looked at gamer.no's profile on metacritic and discovered that there are 640 (out of 930) games that they reviewed more favourably. That's 640 games that gamer.no thinks are better than BotW. Including Euro Truck Simulator 2. I'm not making this shit up!
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
Yeah, that really got me too. It's literally the exact opposite of what virtually every other review in existence has said. This is not something that you can defend by saying it's a matter of opinion. The world is either rich and vibrant and chock-full of all kinds of amazing shit, or it's empty and soulless; it can't be both to different reviewers.
I almost sat here giving you a lengthy response on how Breath of the Wild rewards you for being a lifelong gamer and doesn't care for you if you want things handed to you, but I think you'll see with your own eyes soon enough.

Let me just say that it's been nearly two weeks, and I haven't been able to properly write about this game. It requires too much concentration and clarity to do it justice in writing.
 

EvilTw1n

Even my henchmen think I'm crazy.
Moderator
I'm foaming at the mouth right now.
All you need to do is look at the dates of the reviews. The worst came out days after the review embargo lifted. Before the embargo, every publication didn't know every other publication's score. I mentioned to @Juegos and @mattavelle1 on the day the embargo lifted that I was surprised no clickbait reviews had been posted (there's usually a few sites that toss out a low score because they know they'll stand out and get clicks). Well, since there weren't any, a few late comers had a wide open field for clicks.

If that sounds cynical, it is. But read Sterling's BotW review. He complained about not skipping shrine cut scenes (which you can do by pressing a button). He complained about shrines breaking the feel of the game without mentioning that, aside from the first four, they're all optional. The guy that gave Modern Warfare 3 a 9.0 complained about Zelda's voice acting.

Someone scoring a game lower than others is normal. Someone scoring a game lower than others due to their own inability to read button prompts, their inability to control their own actions, and their history of reviewing games more charitably with worse quality narrative decisions, though? That's what irks people. Editorial standards are supposed to be a thing. Otherwise all reviews are little more than diary entries.

Sterling adores his shtick, though ("thank God for me!"), so this is all fine by him. More people will read him for the controversy, even if fewer people actually trust him.

But this is also the reason that anyone looking to Metacritic for a reasoned summation of what constitutes a gaming classic are going to be disappointed. Paid click trolls have made the decree that scores will almost never again reach Tony Hawk and Ocarina (aside from GTA, apparently). Thems the breaks.

TL;DR - Metacritic is the equivalent of cable news, and will rot your brain.
 
Last edited:

mattavelle1

IT’S GOT A DEATH RAY!
Moderator
All you need to do is look at the dates of the reviews. The worst came out days after the review embargo lifted. Before the embargo, every publication didn't know every other publication's score. I mentioned to @Juegos and @mattavelle1 on the day the embargo lifted that I was surprised no clickbait reviews had been posted (there's usually a few sites that toss out a low score because they know they'll stand out and get clicks). Well, since there weren't any, a few late comers had a wide open field for clicks.

If that sounds cynical, it is. But read Sterling's BotW review. He complained about not skipping shrine cut scenes (which you can do by pressing a button). He complained about shrines breaking the feel of the game without mentioning that, aside from the first four, they're all optional. The guy that gave Modern Warfare 3 a 9.0 complained about Zelda's voice acting.

Someone scoring a game lower than others is normal. Someone scoring a game lower than others due to their own inability to read button prompts, their inability to control their own actions, and their history of reviewing games more charitably with worse quality narrative decisions, though? That's what irks people. Editorial standards are supposed to be a thing. Otherwise all reviews are little more than diary entries.

Sterling adores his shtick, though ("thank God for me!"), so this is all fine by him. More people will read him for the controversy, even if fewer people actually trust him.

But this is also the reason that anyone looking to Metacritic for a reasoned summation of what constitutes a gaming classic are going to be disappointed. Paid click trolls have made the decree that scores will almost never again reach Tony Hawk and Ocarina (aside from GTA, apparently). Thems the breaks.

TL;DR - Metacritic is the equivalent of cable news, and will rot your brain.
Truth. I remember talkin about this and we were all holding our breath cause we knew that one odd score was gonna be there. When the day ended and the "troll score" was a 9.2 to be honest I thought at that time this would be the highest game ever rated (and for good measure).

Then a week or so later you got these guys, yeah I don't know it really just Dosent sit well. It's almost like the contractor who gets to see everyone's else bid first and he just underbids them all. It's just not right I don't think.

I'm not gonna burn anyone at the stake for it, just an annoyance because if that review keeps anyone from playing this game it has done that person a disservice.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
As opposed to what? A false review? Someone claiming BotW as a fantastic game, or one that pushed the boundaries of any previous Zelda game before it is now considered a falsehood or something?


...for the record, I have not played BotW, so I don't know if that's true or not.
 

EvilTw1n

Even my henchmen think I'm crazy.
Moderator
:sigh:

I know I'm putting too much into this, but...
As opposed to what? A false review? Someone claiming BotW as a fantastic game, or one that pushed the boundaries of any previous Zelda game before it is now considered a falsehood or something?

...for the record, I have not played BotW, so I don't know if that's true or not.
Well, lemme try to elaborate...
Then a week or so later you got these guys, yeah I don't know it really just Dosent sit well. It's almost like the contractor who gets to see everyone's else bid first and he just underbids them all. It's just not right I don't think.
It doesn't sit well because it's a cynical ploy. But Jim's whole faux-insufferable shtick is a cynical ploy, too (I'm sure he's actually a very nice fellow, not the sort of egomaniac who really believes we should all be thankful he deigns to write about games). Watch enough of his videos and reviews and you find someone that, between bluster, occasionally knows their shit. For instance, this one on open-world games. Skip to 1:20. Keep listening. Yes, he can be absolutely insufferable (again, that's his hustle). And the point on empty open-world games is a point that we've all been making for, y'know, years (so it's not like he's making some big intellectual point that any common forum dweller like you and me haven't made). But it's true, and it's an op/ed screed steeped in examples by someone who has obviously played these games and groks them.

And, of course, that's why I linked to that particular vid on sandboxes. It was posted only about two months ago. Breath of the Wild is, for the little pond that is videogames, a pretty notable ripple in the history of open-world games. I don't believe I'm being hyperbolic in saying so. Open-world 3D game design has pretty much been Ocarina, GTA3, then shinier versions of GTA3* with radio towers. They've never been built with the interactive density of BotW, where every action (even humble foraging for mushrooms) directly ties into a huge gameplay loop. BotW has a loop Westworld would blanch at.

Skip to 10:40 of that vid...and again, Jim's right. Having a well-plotted beginning, middle, and end are important, and it's easy to struggle with that. BotW does not. Yes, you can eff around at first, but you'll need to get off that plateau, so you'll have to get your beginning plot dump. The middle is done at your own pace, but tells you "hey, if you want plot, this his how you find it" to get your middle section. The end is whenever you decide to plan a siege on the castle. The genius of this approach is that it's relatively hands-off, and you only have to learn as much as you really want to, and yet it still has a very structured narrative.

That's what makes his BotW review so silly. I already know that Jim knows better because of what he's already written. I already know that even if he (like me) had problems with weapon durability, a smart writer could still see a living, breathing world with many things to do in it, which hasn't been done at anything close to this level or scale. You can not like the stamina meter, but it probably shouldn't blind you to the fact that this is the first 3D Zelda - and first game at all, really - to reach back in time and take the ethos of the original 2D Zelda and translate that into a modern open world.

If you love videogames, you know when you're playing something historically relevant. Even when you find problems with it (I knew Xenoblade was special, even though I didn't like it at first). So Sterling can bitch all he wants about butthurt fanboys, but writing on the internet creates a record and generates a baseline for your intellectual standards, and you kinda have to acknowledge those. And eventually he's going to have to own being the one that feigned ignorance of a landmark in game design for a few extra page clicks because "I can't stop myself from going into shrines, nor can I bother to press a button to skip a cut scene."




[*Not that there's anything wrong with that; I could pop in GTA3 now and enjoy it. One of my top 10 games - maybe top 5.]
 
Last edited:

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
:sigh:

I know I'm putting too much into this, but...

Well, lemme try to elaborate...

It doesn't sit well because it's a cynical ploy. But Jim's whole faux-insufferable shtick is a cynical ploy, too (I'm sure he's actually a very nice fellow, not the sort of egomaniac who really believes we should all be thankful he deigns to write about games). Watch enough of his videos and reviews and you find someone that, between bluster, occasionally knows their shit. For instance, this one on open-world games. Skip to 1:20. Keep listening. Yes, he can be absolutely insufferable (again, that's his hustle). And the point on empty open-world games is a point that we've all been making for, y'know, years (so it's not like he's making some big intellectual point that any common forum dweller like you and me haven't made). But it's true, and it's an op/ed screed steeped in examples by someone who has obviously played these games and groks them.

And, of course, that's why I linked to that particular vid on sandboxes. It was posted only about two months ago. Breath of the Wild is, for the little pond that is videogames, a pretty notable ripple in the history of open-world games. I don't believe I'm being hyperbolic in saying so. Open-world 3D game design has pretty much been Ocarina, GTA3, then shinier versions of GTA3* with radio towers. They've never been built with the interactive density of BotW, where every action (even humble foraging for mushrooms) directly ties into a huge gameplay loop. BotW has a loop Westworld would blanch at.

Skip to 10:40 of that vid...and again, Jim's right. Having a well-plotted beginning, middle, and end are important, and it's easy to struggle with that. BotW does not. Yes, you can eff around at first, but you'll need to get off that plateau, so you'll have to get your beginning plot dump. The middle is done at your own pace, but tells you "hey, if you want plot, this his how you find it" to get your middle section. The end is whenever you decide to plan a siege on the castle. The genius of this approach is that it's relatively hands-off, and you only have to learn as much as you really want to, and yet it still has a very structured narrative.

That's what makes his BotW review so silly. I already know that Jim knows better because of what he's already written. I already know that even if he (like me) had problems with weapon durability, a smart writer could still see a living, breathing world with many things to do in it, which hasn't been done at anything close to this level or scale. You can not like the stamina meter, but it probably shouldn't blind you to the fact that this is the first 3D Zelda - and first game at all, really - to reach back in time and take the ethos of the original 2D Zelda and translate that into a modern open world.

If you love videogames, you know when you're playing something historically relevant. Even when you find problems with it (I knew Xenoblade was special, even though I didn't like it at first). So Sterling can bitch all he wants about butthurt fanboys, but writing on the internet creates a record and generates a baseline for your intellectual standards, and you kinda have to acknowledge those. And eventually he's going to have to own being the one that feigned ignorance of a landmark in game design for a few extra page clicks because "I can't stop myself from going into shrines, nor can I bother to press a button to skip a cut scene."




[*Not that there's anything wrong with that; I could pop in GTA3 now and enjoy it. One of my top 10 games - maybe top 5.]
I love you, dude. :mhug:
 

Socar

Active Member
Doesnt help that it comes a few days after Jim went on a rant claiming Nintendo was stealing his money.
Its stinks of bias, but I find it very cute that some are rallying behind this as the true review, lol get a grip.
My point exactly. If Nintendo didn't do that youtube policy thing, although I seriously doubt that he would have given a better score for the game, he might have given it a better score for the game.

I gotta ask though, do we really need to have game reviews these days? I mean a lot of the game reviewers aren't even professional at their works or at the least do not properly construct their reviews.

While I can understand that games are a subjective matter of taste, giving false things about the games or ranting at stuff that doesn't make sense for the game is what I truly hate.

Like the criticism that IGN gave for Pokemon OR/AS is..get this...too much water.

What the hell does that have to do anything with the actual game? The game is based on Hoenn which is based on Kyushu. Are they(reviewers) saying that the devs should not have made the world just like the real world? Because that is how game worlds mostly work by taking inspiration of existing worlds or making the worlds as immersive as possible. The worlds in Pokemon do both whether they like it or not and nothing is going to change that. And if it is changed, the essence of Pokemon will be hindered.

Pokemon S/M worlds are fresh and maintain the world of Pokemon rather well and its all because its based on real worlds.

Now if the reviewer criticized the games for the framrate issues, THAT i can agree because..let's face it, the 3DS Pokemon games do have some framerate issues even with the New 3DS. But apparently, that's not the case because "Too much water" Is the main drawback than that.

At this rate, the future of game devs is starting to become into question. If the number on the reviews is what will judge them into keeping their jobs, then I seriously pray that they don't end up losing because of said reason. I mean, people tend to forget that actual people are behind those scenes making games. If that is something reviewers won't keep in mind when doing reviews, then I'm sorry to say this but you might as well not do reviews in the first place because as long as people start losing interest at them, they will lose their "professional" job and by them I mean the reviewers themselves.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
I disagree with you guys a little bit. 7/10 and 3 starts out of 5 (Slant Magazine) were perhaps too low for this game that is a masterpiece according to most reviewers, but on the other hand, some of 10/10 reviews are also work of Nintendo fans and Zelda fans.

For example, it'd be impossible for IGN to not give 10/10 for this game. Mr Otero is a die-hard fan of Nintendo, he "owns" the Nintendo "department" of IGN and he never let Nintendo down. His review doesn't talk about this story of the game, hardly talk about dungeons and the way he talks about weather, cooking, exploration, puzzles, and other world features doesn't describe anything innovative. Every paragraph about the world, once I read I thought "Well, the way he describes it, I've seen it in many other open-world games".

The same way I feel about many other 10/10 (specially those from Nintendo sites). A bunch of paragraphs describing things that exist in other open-world games but with that special enthusiasm of Nintendo/Zelda fans that were waiting 5 years for a proper Zelda. They don't describe in depth the music, voice acting, dungeons, etc.

Slant Magazine review was fair in my opinion. They disliked the story and many mechanics and the way they put their points were very clear. They talked about the freedom of the world vs the mechanics that in fact were a problem to the exploration of the world meaning that "it's not really true that you can go anywhere as soon as you start the game". For me, some Jim points were fair too.

The Metacritic is always the same drama: when it puts the game on the second place, Metacritic is wonderful. Once the game goes low on Metacritic: "Metacritic means nothing". That's what I've been reading everywhere, how Breath of the Wild fans were talking about Metacritic last week and now Metacritic is trash. I know that it's not the behaviour here, but I disagree about the value of Metacritic. For me, there's no other way to do this: games (like films and everything else) need reviews. Reviews need scores and someone needs to aggregate them: Metacritc. I also agree that games like Ocarina of Time, Mario Galaxy and GTAV are among the best of the best and they deserve their place there. I read people saying that Ocarina of Time has too few reviews, but in that times there were less vehicles than today while today we have too many, so it doesn't mean anything for me.

I don't see any problem about late reviews. I prefer reviewers that take their time than the ones to rush to a decision. I see no problem in reviewers reading other reviews before writing.

TL;DR
  • Slant Magazine and Jim wrote some fair points about stamina, some average mechanics, poor story, average dungeons.
  • Some 10/10 reviews are bollocks and the fact the Zelda is Zelda, one of the most beloved franchises in the world, make a lot of them biased. Nintendo fan reviewers are sometimes biased. IGN is one example of poor 10/10 review.
  • Metacritic is useful.
  • I don't see the problem about late reviews.
 
Last edited:

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
I disagree with you guys a little bit. 7/10 and 3 starts out of 5 (Slant Magazine) were perhaps too low for this game that is a masterpiece according to most reviewers, but on the other hand, some of 10/10 reviews are also work of Nintendo fans and Zelda fans.

For example, it'd be impossible for IGN to not give 10/10 for this game. Mr Otero is a die-hard fan of Nintendo, he "owns" the Nintendo "department" of IGN and he never let Nintendo down. His review doesn't talk about this story of the game, hardly talk about dungeons and the way he talks about weather, cooking, exploration, puzzles, and other world features doesn't describe anything innovative. Every paragraph about the world, once I read I thought "Well, the way he describes it, I've seen it in many other open-world games".

The same way I feel about many other 10/10 (specially those from Nintendo sites). A bunch of paragraphs describing things that exist in other open-world games but with that special enthusiasm of Nintendo/Zelda fans that were waiting 5 years for a proper Zelda. They don't describe in depth the music, voice acting, dungeons, etc.

Slant Magazine review was fair in my opinion. They disliked the story and many mechanics and the way they put their points were very clear. They talked about the freedom of the world vs the mechanics that in fact were a problem to the exploration of the world meaning that "it's not really true that you can go anywhere as soon as you start the game". For me, some Jim points were fair too.

The Metacritic is always the same drama: when it puts the game on the second place, Metacritic is wonderful. Once the game goes low on Metacritic: "Metacritic means nothing". That's what I've been reading everywhere, how Breath of the Wild fans were talking about Metacritic last week and now Metacritic is trash. I know that it's not the behaviour here, but I disagree about the value of Metacritic. For me, there's no other way to do this: games (like films and everything else) need reviews. Reviews need scores and someone needs to aggregate them: Metacritc. I also agree that games like Ocarina of Time, Mario Galaxy and GTAV are among the best of the best and they deserve their place there. I read people saying that Ocarina of Time has too few reviews, but in that times there were less vehicles than today while today we have too many, so it doesn't mean anything for me.

I don't see any problem about late reviews. I prefer reviewers that take their time than the ones to rush to a decision. I see no problem in reviewers reading other reviews before writing.

TL;DR
  • Slant Magazine and Jim wrote some fair points about stamina, some average mechanics, poor story, average dungeons.
  • Some 10/10 reviews are bollocks and the fact the Zelda is Zelda, one of the most beloved franchises in the world, make a lot of them biased. Nintendo fan reviewers are sometimes biased. IGN is one example of poor 10/10 review.
  • Metacritic is useful.
  • I don't see the problem about late reviews.
play the game and you will understand why the late scores and their reasonings are so absurd

  • Slant Magazine and Jim wrote some fair points about stamina, some average mechanics, poor story, average dungeons.
the stamina, mechanics, and story arguments were NOT fair points... the dungeon one is a little debatable, yes the shrines look alike and are short, but there are also 120 of them and they are almost all very clever... the regular 4 dungeons also share similarities with each other, but the puzzles are AGAIN very clever... the mechanics called into question is weapon frailty which serves a very noticeable purpose in the game, if they simply stated they didn't like it that would be one thing, but they argued that it was a flaw, and that isn't fair, as they worked perfectly towards what they intended to do. The story argument is not fair because games like cod routinely get a pass here, and this is 1 of if not THE best stories to grace a zelda game. Other unfair points include saying the world is barren and lifeless... I have NEVER seen anything close to the amount of content density this game has in any other open world rpg... and the world design, weather systems, widlife and more create perhaps the msot natural feelign open world ever.
  • Some 10/10 reviews are bollocks and the fact the Zelda is Zelda, one of the most beloved franchises in the world, make a lot of them biased. Nintendo fan reviewers are sometimes biased. IGN is one example of poor 10/10 review.
I would agree when it came to ss, but this game is more than deserving of all the 10s, play it and you will understand.
  • Metacritic is useful.
all review systems are a clusterfuck, and metacritic averaging scores that often are not even meant to be classified in a 100 point system is about the worst possible thing that can be done... rotten tomatoes makes FAR more sense by having the percentage represent general positive reviews, made even more accurate by the understanding that middle ground scores point to divisive products rather than BAD ones.... metacritic basically hammers all content into a 1 size fits all, and that makes no sense... a 3 out of 5 is like a c letter grade, but when averaged into a 100 point system it becomes a 60 which is like a d- letter grade... there are completely different ideologies behind 5 point and 10/100 point scales, and you can't just math them into place... as doing so turns a c into a d- and that is just a simple example of how it doesn't work... metacritic is shit
  • I don't see the problem about late reviews.
the problem isn't that the reviews are late, but that the nature of them being late allows the reviewer to adjust their score to stand out among those of other reviewers which allows for unethical scoring for the purpose of clicks and attention... it is why there are ALWAYS scores that come in a week behind that are notably different from the norm... scores that come in quite a bit later seem to balance back out, but it is a common trend for reviewers to score games a little later in order to factor in the reviews of others first so as to use their review for popularity leverage... and that is the exact kind of bullshit that makes games "journalism" such a laughable field. You will see it again.... reviews that come in 2-3 weeks late will conform back to the averages of the embargoed scores... because those are ACTUAL opinions, not hindered by greed and unethical "journalism" that doesn't mean that ALL reviews that come in at that time, or ALL reviews that are negative when the majority are positive come from a place of poor ethics... but there has been a noticeable trend of it for years... and the existence of metacritic contributes to it
 
Last edited:

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
Came in to post this, leaves happy.
he might not have that take away though, as Odo is the one who denied hybrid for months after the switch was confirmed as one... because he had made his argument to the contrary and couldn't give up his position, so he created a no true Scotsman fallacy tied into some good old fashioned goal post moving in order to continue the argument after already being proven wrong. So all of our "you'll understand when you play it" comments might not hold as he could actively seek to change his defined standards in order to meet his old perspective.

that is my concern, you can always tell people they wont understand until they play, and you can be 100% right (as I believe we are), but if they have decided you are wrong BEFORE they play, and keep their mind closed to the discovery that they are wrong, they could rewrite their own first experience, and flavor it towards a negative bias in order to hold on to the idea that they were right
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
he might not have that take away though, as Odo is the one who denied hybrid for months after the switch was confirmed as one... because he had made his argument to the contrary and couldn't give up his position, so he created a no true Scotsman fallacy tied into some good old fashioned goal post moving in order to continue the argument after already being proven wrong. So all of our "you'll understand when you play it" comments might not hold as he could actively seek to change his defined standards in order to meet his old perspective.

that is my concern, you can always tell people they wont understand until they play, and you can be 100% right (as I believe we are), but if they have decided you are wrong BEFORE they play, and keep their mind closed to the discovery that they are wrong, they could rewrite their own first experience, and flavor it towards a negative bias in order to hold on to the idea that they were right
I can judge by this post some stuff:

1 - You believe that I'm dishonest and childish, because I'd deny forever even when I'm proved wrong.
2- You believe that I have a closed mind and I'll keep hating whatever people love here even when I'm wrong.
3 - You're still bringing up the hybrid discussion so you might still be upset because I disagreed with you (and with many) and you'll keep bringing this up to make me look like the "enemy" or something like that, I don't know.

I've got to say that I still believe that NSW is handheld device. You can't prove me wrong on that because it's a matter of how I see the product. If Apple says that iPad Pro is a personal computer like any notebook, and I say that it's not, it's a powerful tablet, that's how I see the product. Nor Apple nor anyone can prove me wrong.

If you're saying that I hold this position just to win on the "Switch prediction thread", You're wrong, because I don't want to win anything. I'm not looking for wining here, I'm not looking for any approval. I don't see NSW as a hybrid just because it's a handheld that plays on TV. That's my position and I know many others who think this way. Perhaps, my only mistake was to share that opinion here. I shared that in other forums and I had no fight, no arguments, no problems.

So, "no true scotsman fallacy"? "rewrite own first experience"? "negative bias", ok I can deduce that your respect for me is low. In this case, there's no point in discussing with you. No problem, I understand. Just ignore my posts and I'll try to ignore yours.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
I can judge by this post some stuff:

1 - You believe that I'm dishonest and childish, because I'd deny forever even when I'm proved wrong.
2- You believe that I have a closed mind and I'll keep hating whatever people love here even when I'm wrong.
3 - You're still bringing up the hybrid discussion so you might still be upset because I disagreed with you (and with many) and you'll keep bringing this up to make me look like the "enemy" or something like that, I don't know.

I've got to say that I still believe that NSW is handheld device. You can't prove me wrong on that because it's a matter of how I see the product. If Apple says that iPad Pro is a personal computer like any notebook, and I say that it's not, it's a powerful tablet, that's how I see the product. Nor Apple nor anyone can prove me wrong.

If you're saying that I hold this position just to win on the "Switch prediction thread", You're wrong, because I don't want to win anything. I'm not looking for wining here, I'm not looking for any approval. I don't see NSW as a hybrid just because it's a handheld that plays on TV. That's my position and I know many others who think this way. Perhaps, my only mistake was to share that opinion here. I shared that in other forums and I had no fight, no arguments, no problems.

So, "no true scotsman fallacy"? "rewrite own first experience"? "negative bias", ok I can deduce that your respect for me is low. In this case, there's no point in discussing with you. No problem, I understand. Just ignore my posts and I'll try to ignore yours.
you created a scenario in which the switch could not be a hybrid because you argued so adamantly against the possibility... did I Lose respect for you in that instance, of course, you couldn't just admit you had it wrong so you redefined everything to fit your view... as such I have no hopes that you can objectively decide on the quality of zelda because before even playing it you have come here to argue against those who have... another disappointing position in which I lost more respect for you... everyone you are saying is wrong has played the game for 10s of hours, while you have not yet touched it... you made up your mind before touching the game, and the obvious parallel to the hybrid argument is clear...

if you think you were not being immature when you added an anti hybrid statement to your signature than you are kidding yourself

you denied a hybrid could happen, then you denied it would... when it came out that it WAS you denied it so thoroughly that by your own definition a hybrid could not exist at all... and if that was your position all along, that would be one thing, but you argued that it WOULDN'T be a hybrid and in doing so acknowledged that a hybrid was a potential thing... and then took such a hardline stance on what a hybrid was that it couldn't even exist as a possibility when the system was revealed to be exactly what you denied it would be...

so yeah, I do not have much respect for you on that issue, and you seem to be heading down the exact same path when it comes to zelda...

so why should I expect an open minded future to this debate from you?
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
everyone you are saying is wrong has played the game for 10s of hours, while you have not yet touched it... you made up your mind before touching the game, and the obvious parallel to the hybrid argument is clear...
When I posted this, why didn't you quote me saying that I couldn't say that the game has "one of the best crafted worlds Nintendo has ever done", based on the fact that I haven't played the game?

Now that I say that I disagree that the later low score reviews aren't that awful and that they have given fair explanations on why they gave that low score, I can't say that because I haven't played the game? Why?

For everything I've seen and I was told, I believe that the world of BotW is incredible and by what I read on Slate and Jim reviews I believe that the score they gave are reasonable based on what they wrote. I disagree that they are hating the game. What's the problem?
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
When I posted this, why didn't you quote me saying that I couldn't say that the game has "one of the best crafted worlds Nintendo has ever done", based on the fact that I haven't played the game?

Now that I say that I disagree that the later low score reviews aren't that awful and that they have given fair explanations on why they gave that low score, I can't say that because I haven't played the game? Why?

For everything I've seen and I was told, I believe that the world of BotW is incredible and by what I read on Slate and Jim reviews I believe that the score they gave are reasonable based on what they wrote. I disagree that they are hating the game. What's the problem?
why would I bother?

I didn't post in support of you for the claim either... but havign experienced the game, that claim, though unearned by you to make, was accurate, so what would be the point of addressing it at all? but when I am disagreeign with you about something you said which is inaccurate, of course I will cite that you haven't played the game... because you haven't...

if you said something positive about the game that was inaccurate and I cared enough to argue it, I would cite the same truth... but why would I cite it on EVERY thing you say about the game, even when you stumble upon the truth of it

what would I say ?

"umm like even though what you said is right you don't know because you haven't played it"

your inability to accurately judge the game doesn't change from example to example, but I have no reason to argue agaisnt your statement when you stumble upon the correct answer...

if you were to argue something positive about the game that IS NOT accurate, I would argue against that (so long as I cared enough about the specific subject to post about it)... like if you said the game had a better story than any rpg.... I would argue against that.... the game has a good story, but it isn't on the same level as something like xenogears or shadow hearts covenant, at least not from what I have played so far

it isn't that you weren't speaking out your ass back then... but I had no reason to say anything about it... if I was in that argument and socar was to say "but Odo hasn't even played the game" to me.. I would say "and neither have you, neither of you are fit to judge it"

so what reason would I have to object to something you said that was true just because you had no reason to know if it was?
 

MANGANian

Megalomaniacal Robo-Zombie
Lemme sum things up for you humans: don't let Jim's review bother you so much.

He is not fond of giving perfect scores. He's certainly not fond of being one of a universal opinion. He will find whatever there is to critic, even if he has to create an argument. That is not to say he's a terrible critic, as I wouldn't be subscribed to him or bother watching his videos at all, but that he has made his purpose and bias completely clear. So, no matter what sort of review he cooks up, if you know his style enough, you can pick out the stuff which seems applicable to you and deduce the actually useful bits.

In other words, (and this is all my assumptions) he feels like he has to give perspective. Marking down Breath of the Wild will give potential buyers the chance to lower their expectations and help strike a conversation despite the fact that his review doesn't match the score. I'd say his review is similar to that one human who wrote Gamespot's Kingdom Hearts II review. While it's at 8.7 now, the original review when it first came out was sat at 7.5-7.9 and paid heavy focus on KH's button-mashing, near auto-play aspect. The score was stealth-changed after complaints in the comment section.

I don't consider both Jim and the Gamespot Guy to be wrong, because despite having fun with KHII I completely agreed with his gripes, and wondered why everyone else in the comment section hated his guts because the score wasn't up to par with the rest of the community.
 
My icons go far and wide, I saw someone post the Murder Charls one I made and never posted anywhere but I guess imgur, so that was odd.

No no, this is obviously another brooklyn homeboy who thinks he can sully my good avatarmaking skills. Move along, folks :^)
 
Top