Author Topic: Gamespot Zelda Review (Read 15502 times)

Nick DiMola · « **Reply #25 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!

zakkiel · « **Reply #26 on:** November 20, 2006, 04:57:02 AM »

Quote
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).

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.

NWR_DrewMG · « **Reply #27 on:** November 20, 2006, 05:00:21 AM »

to you.

end of argument.

zakkiel · « **Reply #28 on:** November 20, 2006, 05:04:45 AM »

To you:

Sorry your attention span is so short that three brief paragraphs overwhelm it. I hear Ritalin can help.

NWR_DrewMG · « **Reply #29 on:** November 20, 2006, 05:05:53 AM »

I'm sorry?

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.

Quote
And the Gamestop review is just wrong.

to you.

ThePerm · « **Reply #30 on:** November 20, 2006, 05:15:00 AM »

as far as reviews go, they SHOULD be objective. Star Fox Adventures was a well made game, but the story killed it

also, gamerankings is the best review site ever
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/928519.asp

NWR_DrewMG · « **Reply #31 on:** November 20, 2006, 05:20:57 AM »

Exactly. The best way to use ratings to your advantage is to take a look at them across the board. If everyone who reviews a game thinks it's dogcrap, then chances are it's dogcrap.

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.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #32 on:** November 20, 2006, 05:24:17 AM »

"as far as reviews go, they SHOULD be objective. Star Fox Adventures was a well made game, but the story killed it"

...and the endless collecting and the dull gameplay and the horrible voice acting ("it's a bad guy!")

Pittbboi · « **Reply #33 on:** November 20, 2006, 05:26:40 AM »

No, I think he meant,

"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.

LuWoo75 · « **Reply #34 on:** November 20, 2006, 05:26:47 AM »

Gamespot is owned by cnet and if you ever looked any of there reviews you'd know that they are always biased or just plain dumb, so it comes to me as no suprise that Gamespot.com reviews are the same. I stopped going there for my gaming news/reviews awhile ago.

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.

NWR_DrewMG · « **Reply #35 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."

RickPowers · « **Reply #36 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?

hudsonhawk · « **Reply #37 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.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #38 on:** November 20, 2006, 08:25:08 AM »

It is obvious that Gears of War has more innovation in its little pinky than Zelda: TP has in its entire game, which is why it got a 9.6.

The Omen · « **Reply #39 on:** November 20, 2006, 08:40:33 AM »

I can end all of this debate: The reviewers OPINION is sh!tty and most likely done purposely to gain this type of exposure.

The Traveller · « **Reply #40 on:** November 20, 2006, 08:51:45 AM »

I remember when Metroid Prime 2 was being reviewed, and at the same time Halo 2 and I think GTA vice city. It went something like this.

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

Luigi Dude · « **Reply #41 on:** November 20, 2006, 09:22:25 AM »

I'm surprised people even look at Gamespot for there reviews at all. Gamespot proves that there site was a complete joke when they gave Mario Kart 64 a 6.4, and that was almost 10 years ago. Now Mario Kart 64 is considered a classic and one of the funnest racing games ever made, which shows how Gamespots review had no effect on anyone.

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.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #42 on:** November 20, 2006, 09:29:26 AM »

"I remember when Metroid Prime 2 was being reviewed, and at the same time Halo 2 and I think GTA vice city. It went something like this.

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.

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #43 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.

Nick DiMola · « **Reply #44 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.

KnowsNothing · « **Reply #45 on:** November 20, 2006, 11:51:33 AM »

I'm also done with Gamespot. And 1up.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #46 on:** November 20, 2006, 12:01:02 PM »

"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.

King of Twitch · « **Reply #47 on:** November 20, 2006, 12:30:20 PM »

Wow 8.8, that's hard to believe. TP is like beauty in disc form.

>>
"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"

willie1234 · « **Reply #48 on:** November 20, 2006, 12:46:29 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. "

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.

Artimus · « **Reply #49 on:** November 20, 2006, 02:05:07 PM »

While we're on the topic of Zelda...Today marked the game's entry into the official GameRankings list (20 reviews needed). Its entry came at spot #2 with an average of 97.1%. Now that will likely go down, but it may actually make the top 5 and give second spot a permanent run for it's money! Considering Metroid is the only game from last gen currently in the top 5, that bodes well for Zelda being one of this new gen's best games.

News:

Author Topic: Gamespot Zelda Review (Read 15502 times)