Topic: Gamespot Zelda Review

[Nick DiMola]

Don't know if this has been posted already, because i haven't been on the boards in a few days, but has anybody else seen this unbelievably low 8.8 they gave Zelda. I mean 8.8 isn't too bad, unless you are talking about gamespot, and then it's just atrocious. It's Zelda, and it's amazing, but I guess the graphics were too terrible for them to even enjoy Zelda. I was pissed about the score when I first saw it, but even more pissed when I read their response to people being pissed about the whole thing.

"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?  

[NWR_DrewMG]

Dude, opinions totally suck.

[Famicom]

Got a link for this response?

[Nick DiMola]

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.  

[Kairon]

not to mention there's a LATE GAME SPOILER IN THE GAMESPOT REVIEW DO NOT READ!!!

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[NWR_DrewMG]

No, reviews are supposed to be opinions.  When someone reviews a game, they give their opinion of it.  If he is truly bothered that the core gameplay hasn't changed, then of course he's going to dock the game some points.  

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?

[Nick DiMola]

"No, reviews are supposed to be opinions. When someone reviews a game, they give their opinion of it. If he is truly bothered that the core gameplay hasn't changed, then of course he's going to dock the game some points."

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.

[RickPowers]

Sorry Mr. Jack, but that quote from Wikipedia proves you wrong.  No where in that quote does it say that the review needs to be objective, rather than subjective.  Reviews are opinion based, as they SHOULD be.  Why?  Because everyone has a different perspective, and perspective colors everything we do.  If reviews were objective and non-biased, every review would be the same, so what's the point?

That said, the review at GameSpot was an absolute travesty.

[hudsonhawk]

I know!  Reviews should be completely unbiased.

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.

[NWR_DrewMG]

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.

[couchmonkey]

You know, I can somewhat agree with the guy on the argument that the game isn't changed that much (at least from the other 3D iterations) but I'd be interested to know what amazing innovative games he's playing on other systems right now.  I'm willing to bet some of them are pretty much the "same old" game design only with a new franchise tossed in.

[Jin-X]

So based on that comment I guess they're gonna start knocking points of tons of FPS for being "go from point A to point B while killing everything in between" right? Or take points of GTA...oh wait they gave GTA 3, Vice City and San Andreas all a 9.6, but Zelda is the one that gets knocked for being Zelda?

See that's why that comment is total BS, if they're gonna go that way they need to do it for every game.

[Nick DiMola]

Quote
Originally posted by: DrewMG

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.

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.  

[zakkiel]

Quote
No, reviews are supposed to be opinions. When someone reviews a game, they give their opinion of it.

A 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.

Quote
That said, the review at GameSpot was an absolute travesty.

Yeah, that's in no way contradictory.

[RickPowers]

It 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).  In fact, if the review is at all controversial, so much the better (that's the Ebert Theorem).  

[NWR_DrewMG]

No, they're not wrong.  A review in a serious gaming publication is a guide to HOW THEY FELT THE GAME WAS.  Just like any other review.  Reviews are never wrong.  Even if he gave Zelda a 2.0, he would not be wrong.  You may think he has crappy taste in games, but that's different.  How is this such a hard concept to grasp?  

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.

[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.  

[Nick DiMola]

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.

[mantidor]

Their inconsistency is indeed true, they will criticize something in one review but praise it in another, as subjective as reviewing is at least try to make sense! this guy was the same who gave MM an 8.3 score (the only one of the game below 9 from the big sites) so his opinion sucks anyway .

[NWR_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?

[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.  

[Ian Sane]

"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."

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.

[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

[Kairon]

I don't think it's fair to bash Gamespot's ENTIRE review process.

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

[RickPowers]

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.