Post by: Nick DiMola on November 20, 2006, 01:40:19 AM
"It's the same damn game we've all been playing for the last 15-odd years. Hey, guess what? You get to go into dungeons...and find items...and put together pieces of heart to make new heart containers. I haven't gotten very far into it, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Triforce is in the mix at some point.
There's a difference between tradition and ossification, and Nintendo's been content to let this series stay the same for too damn long. What's more, in a lot of ways it's actually getting to be pretty annoying."
Exerpt from this article
I am going to take a moment here to simply say, Gamespot lick my testicles. Seriously, they do not deserve readers after a response like that. After reading a bunch of the launch game reviews I am confident in saying that Gamespot is extremely biased against Nintendo and they just need to stop covering anything Nintendo on their site. I mean really how do you knock Zelda? It's not like you get this experience very often, so whenever I do get the chance I love it. There is no game in this world more engaging than Zelda, even my brother who plays primarily shooters and sports games picked up Zelda with his Wii and considers it one of the best games ever. I just can't believe that Zelda didn't even make it above 9.0 for an editors choice award. Maybe I shouldn't be this pissed but WTF how do you ream Zelda like that?
Post by: NWR_DrewMG on November 20, 2006, 02:07:48 AM
Post by: Famicom on November 20, 2006, 02:17:30 AM
Post by: Nick DiMola on November 20, 2006, 02:17:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: DrewMG
Dude, opinions totally suck.
It's not that opinions suck, everyone has a right to one, but a review is supposed to be an unbiased assessment of the game, not an opinion. The way they docked points from the game just doesn't make sense.
Gameplay: 8
Graphics: 9
Sound: 7
Value: 9
Tilt: 10
Gameplay 8, Value 9? What? Those two are easily 10's. The score wouldn't be so bad if so many other mediocre games weren't scored way higher. Not sure why the sound was only a 7 but that also seems pretty low. If the complaint lies with the sounds on the Wiimote speaker, just turn the damn thing off, like half of us are already doing.
Gameplay: 10
Graphics: 10
Sound: 10
Value: 10
Tilt: 10
Another game reviewed by Jeff Gerstmann, can anyone guess what it is? Must be a good game, perfect 10. Oh, that's right it's Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 on the PS2, clearly a superior title. Don't get me wrong, I like the Tony Hawk series, but better than Zelda, hmm, I don't think so.
Post by: Kairon on November 20, 2006, 02:33:09 AM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: NWR_DrewMG on November 20, 2006, 02:38:24 AM
People, if you want to see every Wii game get 9s and 10s, then you're going to have to write the reviews yourself.
Personally, I'd score the games I've played so far as follows:
Zelda: 9.6
Monkey Ball: 5.5
Wii Sports: 8.5
Trauma Center: 7.8
Those are my opinions.
It's been said in every thread in this forum for the past month: read the text of the review, and decide for yourself. Obviously this gamespot reviewer is not looking for the same things in a game that you are, so why get so mad about it?
Post by: Nick DiMola on November 20, 2006, 02:49:51 AM
Well this is clearly where we disagree, a review is not supposed to be an opinion. From Wikipedia:
"A review is an evaluation of a publication, such as a movie, video game, musical composition, or book or a piece of hardware like a car, appliance, or computer. In addition to a critical statement, the review's author may assign the work a rating (for instance, one to five stars) to indicate its relative merit."
The definition of a review states that it is not opinion based and gamespot's reviews are also supposed to reflect that. The first 4 categories are simply evaluation based, not opinon based. That little guy at the bottom, called Tilt, that one is there to share how you felt about the game. The reason why I get so pissed is because sites like this fuel negativity towards Nintendo in the industry. I am so sick of everyone's negative attitude towards Nintendo because of a few editors on a website. Zelda is a fantastic game, with top notch production values and polish. A review(unbiased assessment) of a game should reflect exactly how well put together that game is. If everyone at Gamespot thought that Zelda was a rehash they should've dropped the tilt to a 5. That lets me know that the game is well put together, but for reasons stated in the text they did not like the game overall.
Post by: RickPowers on November 20, 2006, 03:16:46 AM
That said, the review at GameSpot was an absolute travesty.
Post by: hudsonhawk on November 20, 2006, 03:22:37 AM
Graphics scores should be replaced by polygon counts.
Reviewers should be forced to compare the game to a baseline game in a double-blind test.
Fun should be scored based on the results of the game being passed through the Fun-O-Meter, an electronic system similar to an EEG which measures the synaptic responses of the game player.
Blood samples will be taken from the reviewer immediately after the reviewer beats or completes the game and tested for seratonin levels. This will be correlated against those of the baseline game as a measure of excitement.
I mean, there's just no room for opinions in gaming! They need to make this more like film reviews, where they are scored based on the results of electronic measurements and chemical testing. Game reviewers should have doctorates in chemistry and electrical engineering, just like doctors Ebert and Roeper.
Post by: NWR_DrewMG on November 20, 2006, 03:27:50 AM
Quote
The reason why I get so pissed is because sites like this fuel negativity towards Nintendo in the industry. I am so sick of everyone's negative attitude towards Nintendo because of a few editors on a website.
I don't understand this at all. I have never in my life seen so much positive buzz for Nintendo. Virtually EVERY non-gaming publication has given the Wii overwhelmingly positive reviews. If the gaming publications are different, well that should tell you something about Nintendo's strategy for the Wii. Gaming publications are, by and large, written by the kind of person who Microsoft and Sony target. Nintendo, as usual, strays from the path. They play to both audiences. Right now, they're leaning away from gamers and toward casual-ites because they know that's where the hard sell is.
We may agree to disagree on the nature of reviews (by the way, every review ever written is biased toward something) but we can agree on this - your avatar kicks some serious arse.
Post by: couchmonkey on November 20, 2006, 03:30:03 AM
Post by: Jin-X on November 20, 2006, 03:42:10 AM
See that's why that comment is total BS, if they're gonna go that way they need to do it for every game.
Post by: Nick DiMola on November 20, 2006, 03:42:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: DrewMGQuote
The reason why I get so pissed is because sites like this fuel negativity towards Nintendo in the industry. I am so sick of everyone's negative attitude towards Nintendo because of a few editors on a website.
I don't understand this at all. I have never in my life seen so much positive buzz for Nintendo. Virtually EVERY non-gaming publication has given the Wii overwhelmingly positive reviews. If the gaming publications are different, well that should tell you something about Nintendo's strategy for the Wii. Gaming publications are, by and large, written by the kind of person who Microsoft and Sony target. Nintendo, as usual, strays from the path. They play to both audiences. Right now, they're leaning away from gamers and toward casual-ites because they know that's where the hard sell is.
We may agree to disagree on the nature of reviews (by the way, every review ever written is biased toward something) but we can agree on this - your avatar kicks some serious arse.
Well I totally agree that right now Nintendo is getting great press, but I don't want alot of that turning negative again. Before E3 really, Nintendo's image sucked. Since then the prospect of the Wii has made them so popular. I just hope they don't get dogged by negative reviews and people discount the system before it has a chance to take off. I also agree that most reviews are biased, and it's not that I don't want some bias in them, it's just that I like accuracy. If the technical aspects of the game are agreed upon, the way the reviewer feels about the game will make slight deviations of the score. But yes, for now I will agree to disagree, which is just fine. Back to my original post, the score is pretty low for a Zelda game and the response just makes me want to strangle that guy.
Thanks about the avatar too! I like yours as well, Ico is a great game.
Post by: zakkiel on November 20, 2006, 03:42:43 AM
QuoteA review in a serious gaming publication is a guide to whether you should purchase the game, not an online journal for you to share your opinions. If 95% of players find TP intensely enjoyable and Gamespot gives it an 8.8, they are wrong. Not of differing opinions, but simply wrong. And I will not be visiting their website again, because I cannot trust their reviews to guide my purchases.
No, reviews are supposed to be opinions. When someone reviews a game, they give their opinion of it.
QuoteYeah, that's in no way contradictory.
That said, the review at GameSpot was an absolute travesty.
Post by: RickPowers on November 20, 2006, 03:49:06 AM
As for your opinion on what a review should do, you are welcome to it as well, but I definitely disagree. A review is what one person thinks about a thing. Yes, they use their position to either encourage or discourage your own consumption, but that doesn't mean that the point of the review is to do that, only that it is a byproduct.
I think were you're confused is that you're assuming that because reviews influence purchases, that influencing purchases is the reason for the review. It's not. The reason for the review is to sell advertising, and to encourage people to read the review (and see the advertising). In fact, if the review is at all controversial, so much the better (that's the Ebert Theorem).
Post by: NWR_DrewMG on November 20, 2006, 03:50:28 AM
If their reviews severely differ from the general public, then it certainly may cause them to lose credibility amongst their peers, but that doesn't make them evil or wrong. It just means you don't agree with them. Like it or not, Mr. GameSpot Reviewer is just another guy like you or me. He's probably been playing video games since he was 5, just like you. Your opinion is no more or less credible than his.
If you seriously think that a major publication has an anti-Nintendo legislation, then you need to spend less time thinking up conspiracy theories and more time doing what you enjoy - playing Nintendo games. They exist to provide opinions. It is no more complicated than that.
Post by: hudsonhawk on November 20, 2006, 03:54:51 AM
This is the stupidest outrage ever. This is a well written review that weighs the pros and cons of the game and gives a score based on that. A very good score at that.
Post by: Nick DiMola on November 20, 2006, 04:02:06 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: hudsonhawk
That you don't think 8.8 is a high enough score is exactly why game scores have become so inflated. 8.8 is a very good score. He calls it a great game. His criticisms are very fair - the game isn't perfect.
This is the stupidest outrage ever. This is a well written review that weighs the pros and cons of the game and gives a score based on that. A very good score at that.
I agree an 8.8 is a great score, but you obviously don't read Gamespot that often. When you look at the scale from 6-10 (where 99% of games end up) rather than 1-10 you realize hey an 8.8 isn't as good as it seems. That 8.8 on a real scale is probably more like a 7.0. If that isn't the case and they really mean 8,8 when they say 8.8 that's a different story. But that just proves the inconsistency of their reviews, another reason why I am done with their website.
Post by: mantidor on November 20, 2006, 04:18:56 AM
Post by: NWR_DrewMG on November 20, 2006, 04:21:57 AM
edit: how do you do the spoiler text?
Post by: hudsonhawk on November 20, 2006, 04:32:01 AM
1Up: 69.9%
Game Informer: 73.0%
Gamespot: 68.0%
IGN: 70.3%
Nintendo World Report: 71.2%*
The median would be more telling here, but this is the best list I could find (from gamerankings.com). I was surprised by what you said, since I do in fact read Gamespot's reviews all the time and find their scale the least skewed of everyones. By this measure, they have the lowest average score of all the major publications. Are you sure it's them that's biased?
*Obviously NWR reviews a very different selection of games from everyone else, but I just wanted to put it up there for curiosity's sake.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 20, 2006, 04:33:06 AM
Okay but then why does Tony Hawk or Madden get away with it? That is one thing I REALLY hate about reviews is that there is often no consistency. There are lots of series that release annual sequels that are at best glorified expansion packs and they don't get sh!t on but Nintendo does. 8.8 isn't a bad score and complaining about things being too samey makes sense. But don't do that and then go ga-ga over the next Gran Turismo.
Post by: Kairon on November 20, 2006, 04:34:25 AM
I think that sorta settles it don't you think?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Kairon on November 20, 2006, 04:36:53 AM
What it IS clear is that this particular review does some things that I'm not sure I appreciate, from a spoiler-avoiding fan's viewpoint, from a critical reader's viewpoint, AND from an editorial policy viewpoint.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: RickPowers on November 20, 2006, 04:41:47 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: hudsonhawk
Average game score by publication:
1Up: 69.9%
Game Informer: 73.0%
Gamespot: 68.0%
IGN: 70.3%
Nintendo World Report: 71.2%*
The median would be more telling here, but this is the best list I could find (from gamerankings.com). I was surprised by what you said, since I do in fact read Gamespot's reviews all the time and find their scale the least skewed of everyones. By this measure, they have the lowest average score of all the major publications. Are you sure it's them that's biased?
*Obviously NWR reviews a very different selection of games from everyone else, but I just wanted to put it up there for curiosity's sake.
Well, if we're going to start talking statistics ...
It might be fun* to actually perform a series of analyses ... regression, ANOVA, etc, and see just how consistent these scores are. That would pretty well indicate if the entire system is flawed or not. However, my hypothesis would be that it's not the review system, but the fact that the reviewers pretty much select which games they review, and will tend to avoid middling game (while occasionally reviewing a super-crappy game to write the obligatory scathing review).
* Fun meaning I have no life and live for multiple data regression analysis.
Post by: Nick DiMola on November 20, 2006, 04:42:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: DrewMG
8.3 for Majora? ouch. I'm one of the very few that preferred Majora to Ocarina, so that stings a bit.
edit: how do you do the spoiler text?
[_spoiler_]stuff[/_spoiler_] just remove the underscores.
woohoo!
Post by: zakkiel on November 20, 2006, 04:57:02 AM
QuoteYour logic is kind of confused. You cannot simultaneously have an opinion and not believe it to be true. If you didn't think it was true, it wouldn't be your opinion. If you think something is true, and someone else disagrees, you are logically compelled to believe that person is wrong. If you have an opinion, you must believe it more than merely your opinion, you must believe it to be a true statement about the world. You cannot both think a game is good and think that people who say it isn't aren't wrong.
t wasn't contradictory. It was my expressing that I disagreed with the review, which having my own opinion, I'm within my rights to do.
As for your opinion on what a review should do, you are welcome to it as well, but I definitely disagree. A review is what one person thinks about a thing. Yes, they use their position to either encourage or discourage your own consumption, but that doesn't mean that the point of the review is to do that, only that it is a byproduct.
I think were you're confused is that you're assuming that because reviews influence purchases, that influencing purchases is the reason for the review. It's not. The reason for the review is to sell advertising, and to encourage people to read the review (and see the advertising).
You can, of course, say "I had fun playing this game," and still think it possible for other people not to, which is what I imagine you're conflating with having an opinion about the game. But almost no review puts itself in these terms. In fact, they're loaded with "Is X worth the price?"
In short, if we accept that your interpretation that a review is entirely subjective, then every objective claim in a review is at best a category mistake, and at worst flat-out lies. And the fact is, you aren't willing to bite that bullet, I'm betting. You aren't going to stop claiming some games are good, and some are bad. So that leaves us with reviews as right and wrong. And the Gamestop review is just wrong.
Post by: NWR_DrewMG on November 20, 2006, 05:00:21 AM
end of argument.
Post by: zakkiel on November 20, 2006, 05:04:45 AM
Sorry your attention span is so short that three brief paragraphs overwhelm it. I hear Ritalin can help.
Post by: NWR_DrewMG on November 20, 2006, 05:05:53 AM
Okay, fine. I'll use quotes to illustrate my point. I really didn't think that was necessary, since you feel the need to quote big words in your sig and therefore must be very smart.
Quoteto you.
And the Gamestop review is just wrong.
Post by: ThePerm on November 20, 2006, 05:15:00 AM
also, gamerankings is the best review site ever
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/928519.asp
Post by: NWR_DrewMG on November 20, 2006, 05:20:57 AM
But the important distinction is that you may, in fact, be the only person alive who enjoys that game. If you choose to read a review and take that opinion as your own, then you run the risk of being misinformed. Because, once again, reviews are not a universal truth.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 20, 2006, 05:24:17 AM
...and the endless collecting and the dull gameplay and the horrible voice acting ("it's a bad guy!")
Post by: Pittbboi on November 20, 2006, 05:26:40 AM
"And the Gamestop review is just wrong. "
"...to you"
And he's got a point, because that's basically what you're saying. I and a few others, on the other hand, agree with the review and it's score, so that would make it "right" to us.
Some people are going to like the review, and some aren't. That's the way it's always been. The only way, I feel, to flaw a person's review is if their analysis if inconsistent with their overall score (for example, NWR gave Zelda a perfect 10, though they spent a lot of time on how imperfect the controls were. Doesn't seem very perfect to me). I think Gamespot's review of the game is very consistent with the score they gave it. 8.8 is still a great score, but still the game isn't perfect. They didn't spend the entire review praising it, they pointed out valid flaws within a game. Too many games get perfect scores nowadays, in my opinion. Deal with it, people. And for heaven's sake please stop comparing the score they gave Zelda to games that aren't even NEAR being in the same genre, like Tony Hawk. That argument is so flawed and petty it's ridiculous.
I think Gamespot caused such a huge flurry of rage because fans of Nintendo were so hyped and hanging on this game, not just because it's Zelda, but because it's the only title out right now that can truly justify the Wii. If this game didn't get perfect scores all around, there'd be very little ammunition for Team Wii in this bloody console war.
Post by: LuWoo75 on November 20, 2006, 05:26:47 AM
I disagree with those who say a review is supposed to subjective and not objective esp when they don't state that from the begining of the review. If I ever knew some one was biased agaist a certain company I would take the reivew with a different perspective.
Post by: NWR_DrewMG on November 20, 2006, 05:29:53 AM
Quote
esp when they don't state that from the begining of the review.
It's a review. It is, in it's very nature, subjective. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a completely objective review.
One could argue that NWR is biased toward Nintendo, but does that stop you from reading their reviews? No, of course not. Let's not confuse "bias" with "personal agenda."
Post by: RickPowers on November 20, 2006, 05:37:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: zakkiel
Your logic is kind of confused. You cannot simultaneously have an opinion and not believe it to be true. If you didn't think it was true, it wouldn't be your opinion. If you think something is true, and someone else disagrees, you are logically compelled to believe that person is wrong. If you have an opinion, you must believe it more than merely your opinion, you must believe it to be a true statement about the world. You cannot both think a game is good and think that people who say it isn't aren't wrong.
You can, of course, say "I had fun playing this game," and still think it possible for other people not to, which is what I imagine you're conflating with having an opinion about the game. But almost no review puts itself in these terms. In fact, they're loaded with "Is X worth the price?"
In short, if we accept that your interpretation that a review is entirely subjective, then every objective claim in a review is at best a category mistake, and at worst flat-out lies. And the fact is, you aren't willing to bite that bullet, I'm betting. You aren't going to stop claiming some games are good, and some are bad. So that leaves us with reviews as right and wrong. And the Gamestop review is just wrong.
Wow ... where to start?
Yes, you can have an opinion and not believe it to be true. Call it playing Devil's Advocate, call it being open-minded, call it baiting people for the sake of traffic. There are multitudinous examples that you can most definitely hold an opinion that you do not believe in.
Look, I've been a journalist, paid and unpaid, in gaming, technology and many other subjects for well over a DECADE. On this particular note, you are completely offbase. You've stepped away from having an opinion yourself to claiming your position as fact. A review is in no way, shape, or form any sort of unbiased dissertation of any kind. By definition, people are biased, and while you can control for that bias, reviews are not now, nor have they ever been a place where that happens.
With that, I'd say that this "conversation" had pretty well run it's course, since you are not stating anything new to back up your opinion. While dusty and rust-covered, I'm certain that my ban-stick is still in working order and it's been a while since I was able to abuse that power, so I'd suggest leaving this to realm of "The guy at GameSpot clearly hates Nintendo and Nintendo Fans" and to cease criticizing any sort of methodology that may or may not be in place.
Capiche?
Post by: hudsonhawk on November 20, 2006, 05:55:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ThePerm
as far as reviews go, they SHOULD be objective. Star Fox Adventures was a well made game, but the story killed it
How - exactly - does one objectively measure the quality of a game's story?
DrewMG is right, it is literally impossible to "objectively" review a game.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 20, 2006, 08:25:08 AM
Post by: The Omen on November 20, 2006, 08:40:33 AM
Post by: The Traveller on November 20, 2006, 08:51:45 AM
Halo 2 a great sequel which surpasses the original etc
GTA vice city is an excellent addition to the series and one of the best games this season
Metroid Prime 2, its too much like the first game.
Prime 2 was proberly the most changed out of all of them :S
Post by: Luigi Dude on November 20, 2006, 09:22:25 AM
Just ignore Gamespot since they've been pulling this sh!t since pretty much their beginning and all this does is gives there horribly made and poorly designed site way more attention then it deserves. To me Gamespot is the online equivelent to Gamepro. Both places have more ads then games and any coverage they do on games is very poor and inaccurate at best.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 20, 2006, 09:29:26 AM
Halo 2 a great sequel which surpasses the original etc
GTA vice city is an excellent addition to the series and one of the best games this season
Metroid Prime 2, its too much like the first game.
Prime 2 was proberly the most changed out of all of them :S"
Dead on. I think we have a combination of two factors. The first is common in, well, everything. It's the "young people don't know sh!t" syndrome. In short ignorance makes something appear better to an individual who only follows current trends and fails to make any effort to look into the past. Think of that jerk in high school who didn't know any music that came out before his 13th birthday. This is REALLY common with videogames. The Playstation introduced a large group of gaming newcombers and it created somewhat of a generation gap. There are those that got into gaming during the 2D era and those that were introduced to gaming in the 3D era. Both groups have slighty different tastes and thus are going to prefer certain games to others. GTA and Halo are current. Zelda in comparison is old. There is going to be a bias towards the newer stuff more and more as time passes on.
The second factor is the "local team" culture of gaming. Because everything is proprietary what console one chooses to spend most or all of their gaming dollars on is a big deal. Gamers tend to have a bias towards their favourite console and a bias against consoles they don't buy. Nintendo has the problem that younger gamers don't "get it" the same way older gamers do because Nintendo's greatest years were many years ago. In the 3D era Nintendo has been a bit of a, well, doofus at the best of times. They tend to screw up a lot more now than they did "back in the day".
So you have a preference to newer game franchises and newer game design conventions combined with Nintendo being the least popular console maker (as demonstrated in market share) and you're going to see them not get treated as well more often then you will see the same done to the competition.
We're old farts listening to rock 'n' roll while all them fool kids listen to hip-hop.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 20, 2006, 10:51:15 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Wow... even Ian Sane doesn't like the Gamespot review... wow...
I think that sorta settles it don't you think?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
AHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
This is quite a milestone. Remember people, this is only made possible thanks to Wii.
~~~~~
About gameslop's review/scoring system: it's practically a mathematical average, with grace points added. I'm suggesting that gameplay, gaffix, and sownd appear to have equal numerical weight in their criteria. I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS AT ALL.
About gameslop's reviewers: something happened between Metroid Prime 2 and the Wii launch to make them turd-brained. I can't access gamespot.com anymore [cuz i've since blocked the domain FOREVER] but I believe Prime 2 got an ok review from Jeff in the 9+ range. So yeah... Zelda got penalized for being Zelda?
WHAT THE FLYING FOCK?
I did see the gameslop video where Jeff and the crew were playing Wii Sports: Bowling. Yes, Jeff was playing.... WHILE SITTING IN AN EFFING COUCH. What? You can cheat the system? OK, but he wasn't doing all that well. If in Wii Bowling you should input a full swing, you should input a full swing, right? Seeing how this lazy vomitus mass of moron was incapable of playing the game properly (reviewers don't have to be competent gamers with decent writing and critical thinking skills with well-grounded gaming foundations and written statements backed by valid, reasonable supporting evidence/ideas, right? is this why we bother giving them our time and attention? CONFIRM/DENY?) I can readily believe he hardly played TP, if true. Probably didn't utilize the Remote properly, either. A game should be played thoroughly and within the recommended boundaries of the game's mechanices to generate a written opinion worthy of our attention, right? I guess he just phailed in so many regards this time around.
He's not worthy of my attention. The rest of the ass-blasted ad-ocean site wasn't worthy of my attention for quite a while, other than the occaisional screenshot.
I'm never visiting again. They're a business, like a TV station, and site traffic is their money tree (a big healthy tree at that). They don't need ad revenue generated by me. They don't need ad revenue generated by you either. So don't bother visiting them as well.
Post by: Nick DiMola on November 20, 2006, 11:48:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
I'm never visiting again. They're a business, like a TV station, and site traffic is their money tree (a big healthy tree at that). They don't need ad revenue generated by me. They don't need ad revenue generated by you either. So don't bother visiting them as well.
QFT. Screw Gamespot, they have been annoying me long enough, and this review did it. I'm done.
Post by: KnowsNothing on November 20, 2006, 11:51:33 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on November 20, 2006, 12:01:02 PM
If I boycotted every game site that pissed me off I would never see a screenshot again and would be totally ignorant of game news... more so.
Post by: King of Twitch on November 20, 2006, 12:30:20 PM
>>
"It's the same damn game we've all been playing for the last 15-odd years. Hey, guess what? You get to go into dungeons...and find items...and put together pieces of heart to make new heart containers. I haven't gotten very far into it, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that Triforce is in the mix at some point.
>>Another game reviewed by Jeff Gerstmann, can anyone guess what it is? Must be a good game, perfect 10. Oh, that's right it's Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 on the PS2, clearly a superior title. "
Funny how he didn't say:
"Tony Hawk 3 is the same sport people have been playing for the past 40-odd years, BUT IN REAL LIFE. You buy a board...learn to balance... and move places quickly.. I haven't gotten very far into it, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that there will be stunts performed in this game"
Post by: willie1234 on November 20, 2006, 12:46:29 PM
So true. I've been fairly happy with Ign in the last year. The criticisms haven't been that bad, and they have good content (videos, etc.).
One site that surprised me a little was joystiq. I never thought it was the greatest site, but for a while it seemed like an ok place to grab news. They went crazy though on launch weekend, coming up with all kinds of ridiculous Zelda/Wii criticisms. Really awful (even worse IMho than the gamespot review). So I guess joystiq is off my list now. Kotaku seems ok for general gaming.
For nintendo stuff, pgc/nwr have been my favorite since the gamecube came out.
Post by: Artimus on November 20, 2006, 02:05:07 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 20, 2006, 04:38:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"I'm never visiting again. They're a business, like a TV station, and site traffic is their money tree (a big healthy tree at that). They don't need ad revenue generated by me. They don't need ad revenue generated by you either. So don't bother visiting them as well."
If I boycotted every game site that pissed me off I would never see a screenshot again and would be totally ignorant of game news... more so.
There's a good handful of sites that pass on 2nd-hand news and screen shots. They do the surfing for you.
And Jeuxfrance.com is an ok place for screenshots, and since they're in, oh, FRENCH, you're pretty much shielded from their opinions (unless you do understand french).
GameSpy has a good selection of screenshots. News? Nah, don't visit them for news, they hardly keep up with anything.
Gameinformer and Gameslop have managed to exceed the 3-strikes rule with regards to writing, media, site layout, etc. IGN is still riding the fence; difference is IGN is so much better with detailed late-breaking info than the other corporate sites.
Oh yeah, NWR is cool.
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 20, 2006, 05:10:59 PM
The funny thing is, having played 17.5 hours into the game, Twilight Princess actually feels quite a bit different from other Zeldas...I'd even go as far as to say there is more in common between Ocarina of Time and Wind Waker than there is between Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess...The presentation is just completely new and overpowering...
Post by: MANTI5 on November 20, 2006, 05:26:04 PM
Post by: Smadte on November 20, 2006, 07:31:20 PM
He does have a point, though. I think a less linear approach to dungeons would be a neat idea. Think of Hyrule as the one "temple" in the entire game, introducing new places and objectives as you become familiar with it ... But the heart container argument is totally lame.
I haven't played the game yet, but I kind of have a feeling this review is embarrassingly and stunningly full of sh|t.
Post by: ThePerm on November 20, 2006, 07:42:34 PM
The guy who didnt finish it and gave it a crappy score may not be at the super kickass hook of the game yet
the guy who gave it a great review may not be at the damned fetch quest from hell yet.
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on November 20, 2006, 08:07:58 PM
except it's a lie and the only reason they rated it less than 9 was for shock value/traffic bait, I'll wager.
4/10
Post by: Requiem on November 20, 2006, 08:15:18 PM
I think people are entitled to their opinions, but badgering a game because of repetitiveness when you haven't even finished the game is *&$@ing dumb. And what's worse, your favorite game is the most repetitive of them all (TH). Sure it's loads of fun, but did it drastically change the core system? (No) Then, WTF?!
Post by: hudsonhawk on November 21, 2006, 02:26:31 AM
Jeff Gerstmann wrote the review. Matt Rorie made the comment that Mr. Jack quoted in the root post, in a blog, and is the one who said that he had not finished it. His blog post was in reaction to the fanboy outcry against their review.
The reviewer, unlike many of those reacting negatively to the review, finished the game.
Post by: Gamebasher on November 21, 2006, 09:50:37 AM
Still 95% out of 100% is a damn high score and fully deserved I believe allthough I haven´´ t got my Wii yet and so haven´t had a chance to play the game so far. Anyways, OOT got 98% when it came out in 1998, so IGN is placing this new game almost on the same level as it´s spiritual prequel, and I have seen recently just how highly Nintendo values IGN. Now, that is not just because IGN is being nice to Nintendo, but more probably because Nintendo feels that 1) IGN gives games fair and honest reviews (which I have witnessed myself countless times that they indeed do), and 2) because IGN is now the biggest online entertainment website in the world giving Nintendo advertising power here more than anywhere else on the internet. So who cares what GameSpot thinks about the new Zelda game?
Everybody in this world who plays Nintendo games knows how many prizes, and awards, and what not Nintendo has received for excellency in gaming content, and in particular for the Zelda-series games since the first such game. So therefore we know we should ignore that kind of negative exposure of Nintendo´s Hero of Time!
I KNOW their review is dead wrong, and that the guy who reviewed is most probably a hater of Nintendo or something. So that means we don´t have to give a hoot what review score he has now gone and given it, because the very numbers in his review score tells more about him than about the game itself. Period!
Post by: zakkiel on November 21, 2006, 12:28:41 PM
Quote
There are multitudinous examples of people expressing opinions that they do not believe in, such as playing Devil's Advocate.
Fixed.
There is no example of someone having an opinion they don't believe to be true. Think about what such an opinion would amount to. Let's say I have the opinion that X is Y. That is by definition the same as saying I believe X is Y. However, I also believe that X is not necessarily Y - that when I say X is Y, that's just my personal opinion. Then my real opinion is that X is not necessarily Y, and for me to say otherwise is to lie, if only to myself. I'm not sure how to help you understand this, because it comes from the final basis of logic - that you cannot simultaneously both affirm and deny the same statement. If you do not understand this, then there is unfortunately no way to make you.
Post by: RickPowers on November 21, 2006, 01:01:52 PM
Post by: Requiem on November 21, 2006, 07:47:32 PM
Let's say Rick likes checkers, however he has to review a game called chess. He thinks the game is well crafted, and considerably intelligent, but his personal opinion is that he doesn't like it. That doesn't mean the game is bad, he just doesn't like it.
Post by: zakkiel on November 22, 2006, 04:57:02 AM
QuoteRead my post again. Somehow you've managed to completely confuse expressing someone an opinion you don't have with actually having an opinion while simultaneously believing its "just" your opinion. The second is impossible. The first is lying, and I have no idea why it's relevant to this discussion, though I am disappointed to discover that it is apparently the norm in gaming journalism. It kind of explains a lot, though.
You're really splitting hairs. You know nothing about someone's ACTUAL opinion from reading a review. You only know their STATED opinion. And for the record, while you can claim that there are no examples, I can prove that there are, because I DO THIS ALL THE TIME. What I actually think and what I tell people I think aren't always the same thing, and there's no way you can tell from a review.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 22, 2006, 05:36:49 AM
Sometimes it is. If it is my opinion that aliens exists I believe that that is factual. It's only my opinion because it hasn't been proven scientifically but I think it is factual. Thus your opinion that aliens don't exists can't be true to me. We can't both be right. One of is in reality wrong.
But with a game I'm expressing what I like. In my opinion Street Fighter II is a good game. You may think it's a bad game. Because this is just personal taste we can both be right. I can think that the game is good and not think you're wrong for thinking it's bad.
There are really two types of opinion. That where we state our tastes and that where we state what we think is factual but isn't accepted as a universal proven fact.
I believe in ghosts so I believe everyone who doesn't is wrong. The two opposite opinions contradict each other and in reality one of us IS wrong and could be proven as such if all knowledge of everything was available to us.
I think fish 'n' chips taste good but feel that no one is right or wrong for having a different opinion of how fish 'n' chips taste. In that case it is a matter of preference so there is no right or wrong.
Post by: RickPowers on November 22, 2006, 05:38:28 AM
