Topic: REVIEWS: The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass

[vudu]

Quote
Originally posted by: Halbred
There's no point in defending my review at this point. I've seen almost nothing but seven pages of rampant fanboyism thus far. Just because I don't like this game AS MUCH AS other Zelda games does not mean that NWR's reviews are going down in quality. What does that even mean? You people don't agree with my review and all of a sudden the entire site is in question? Give me a break. You're all acting like I insulted a PERSON by finding fault with this game, and frankly, it makes me sick.

We do this all the freaking time.  (Note:  those are four links, not one.)  Chill out.  Why don't you try to respond to some of the criticism and back up your points rather than take the high-and-mighty stance?

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
When was the last review posted where EVERYONE said, "Yeah, that's pretty fair. I agree."?

April 4, 2007

[UltimatePartyBear]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother

When was the last review posted where EVERYONE said, "Yeah, that's pretty fair. I agree."?

"Me too" posts are worthless and are to be discouraged.  Guess what that leaves.


The only issue I have with this review is that the tone is maybe a little caustic.  It sounds like there's strong hatred for the game, but obviously the score doesn't reflect that.  It's something I've seen in plenty of reviews on sites large and small, when a reviewer spends a lot of time explaining why a game doesn't deserve a higher score but doesn't satisfactorily explain why it doesn't deserve a lower score.

I haven't played the game yet, so I can't comment on whether the review is accurate.  However, there's something in the NWR policy I'd like to point out:

Quote
A game's score is a general indication of how good or bad it is compared to other games released for that system at the time

Compare that to the following:

Quote
Phantom Hourglass fails to meet the high standards set by Wind Waker, Link to the Past, Link's Awakening, and, at times, Twilight Princess. And don't blame the technology. Link's Awakening, in my humble opinion, is one of the best Zelda games ever made, and it's an original Game Boy cart. Thusly, I cannot give PH a score as high or higher than any of those games.

I can tell that you're offended, Halbred, so let me be clear: I am not attacking anyone here.  I'm trying to be constructive.  It seems to me that this review was not written in accordance with NWR's policy if it was based on comparisons to games from other systems and times.  If venerated series such as Zelda are exempt from that policy, either that exception should be noted in the policy, or the policy should be changed.

Also, while I couldn't find it in the policy, I'm almost positive I've seen official comments to the effect that a game getting a higher score than some other game does not mean that one is "better" than the other.

[Kairon]

This is one of the problems with having an intelligent readership... if I may so say myself. *ahem*

[Halbred]

Alright, I'm sorry. I may have overreacted. Being one of the new guys, I'm not accustomed to having my review torn to pieces by the masses I write for. Now, in all honesty, I think I backed up my criticisms of the game pretty well in the review, and that should be taken at face value. However, I have to compare to Wind Waker at the very least, because PH claims to be a direct sequel to that game. I expect some continuity. There is NONE. In fact, at the end of the game:

SPOILERS AHEAD

Link and Tetra wake up from a dream. It was all a dream. Well, it obviously wasn't a dream, because Linebeck survived, but overall, the entire storyline does not impact Wind Waker at all. I think this speaks to Nintendo's reluctance to move beyond the Wind Waker, into territory not ruled by Ganondorft, Vaati, or any other familiar element. They had to construct a dream sequence instead which will have no resonance in the continuity of the series. But whereas Link's dream in Awakening was thought-provoking and meaningful, I didn't get that feeling at the end of PH. It felt more like Nintendo copped out on me.

SPOILERS END

So yeah. I didn't like it in relation to the other Zelda games, but I also didn't like it on its own. I think my review was fair to the game. And keep in mind that my take on PH is MY take on PH. Like I said, other NWR staffers may disagree and love it.

Also, I don't mean to lump EVERYBODY into the fanboyism category. Obviously there have been a few of you (like Golden Phoenix) who have stood up to the review, but overall people are tearing it apart. Thus my reaction above.

[stedaman]

Quote
Originally posted by: Halbred
There's no point in defending my review at this point. I've seen almost nothing but seven pages of rampant fanboyism thus far. Just because I don't like this game AS MUCH AS other Zelda games does not mean that NWR's reviews are going down in quality. What does that even mean? You people don't agree with my review and all of a sudden the entire site is in question? Give me a break. You're all acting like I insulted a PERSON by finding fault with this game, and frankly, it makes me sick.

One of the most important aspects of reviewing a game, for me, is to compare that game to its peers. Phantom Hourglass fails to meet the high standards set by Wind Waker, Link to the Past, Link's Awakening, and, at times, Twilight Princess. And don't blame the technology. Link's Awakening, in my humble opinion, is one of the best Zelda games ever made, and it's an original Game Boy cart. Thusly, I cannot give PH a score as high or higher than any of those games. And I honestly did not like the Temple of the Ocean King. And you know, as I read other online reviews, I noticed that a lot of other gaming outlets didn't like it either, so it's not just me. And a lot of other people questioned the lack of D-pad control.

So I'm going to defend my review anymore. Nothing will be gained, and I'm not going to make anybody see the light. I did not like this game. That doesn't mean YOU don't have to. And other NWR staffers will be reviewing it soon, so maybe they'll like it, and you can just go ahead and read the review you want to read instead of mine. You know, the review that validates your point of view.

It's your review, everyone has different opinions and that's fine.
For me your review is totally different to what mine would be..but thats why we are different.
You didn't like the game? ...well i'm surprised to say the least...but thx for the review....alot of debate/discussion which is a good thing.

[stedaman]

@ smash_brother

People are very opinionated..myself extremely..but it's not bitching.. more so debating/discussion.

that's what the point about reading a review and talking aobut it is all about. If you do'nt agree with it...you say why not.

 

[stedaman]

@ Ian Sane

stedaman : "Why is using the touchscreen for a game a stupid idea?"

Ian Sane : "Because it makes moving awkward. It's floaty and inaccurate and you don't even feel like you're controlling the character. And it's only stupid to use JUST the touchscreen. There's no problem with using it period."

Again..I disagree controls for me feel like you can move fine and moving him yourself fine...feels fine.

I'm trying to get over the just use touchscreen debate. The game is based on it...that's just how it is..this certain game had the idea to use touchscreen onyl..and it was in my opinion very succesful. All games should have d-pad fucntions, is that it? ...very strange. Mario 64 Ds is complety different!... The game wasn't made like Zelda has been made. Enjoy this stylus only game! let another zelda come out later that uses the d-pad to satisfy your needs! , just enjoy this

[ShyGuy]

I like you, Halbred.

But I didn't read this review. People just don't want NWR to lower the average score on Gamerankings or Metacritic.

[UncleBob]

It's not the score of the review that some of us have a problem with - it's how the game seems to be attacked for crazy reasons.  "This game isn't like Wind Waker!" is not a good reason to attempt to discredit a game.  Unless, of course, we're going to start judging *every* game on how much the game is or isn't like Wind Waker.

So the game's not like Wind Waker.  Super Mario 64 wasn't like Super Mario World - should we rag on SM64 because of that?  Or just talk about the strengths and faults of SM64 on their own?

Additionally, the tone of the review was pretty unfairly harsh.  A sentence such as "I never forgot that I was holding a stylus, dragging and tapping it on the screen like a monkey to make Link move." has no place in a professional review.  Perhaps that was the problem - Halbred was too busy playing in feces like a monkey instead of playing the game.

Is this game absolutely perfect?  Nope.  It's not Link's Awakening.  However, as a long time Zelda fan, I honestly would probably rank it higher than Wind Waker and Twilight Princess.  Maybe even OoT...

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBob
It's not the score of the review that some of us have a problem with - it's how the game seems to be attacked for crazy reasons.  "This game isn't like Wind Waker!" is not a good reason to attempt to discredit a game.  Unless, of course, we're going to start judging *every* game on how much the game is or isn't like Wind Waker.

So the game's not like Wind Waker.  Super Mario 64 wasn't like Super Mario World - should we rag on SM64 because of that?  Or just talk about the strengths and faults of SM64 on their own?

Additionally, the tone of the review was pretty unfairly harsh.  A sentence such as "I never forgot that I was holding a stylus, dragging and tapping it on the screen like a monkey to make Link move." has no place in a professional review.  Perhaps that was the problem - Halbred was too busy playing in feces like a monkey instead of playing the game.

Is this game absolutely perfect?  Nope.  It's not Link's Awakening.  However, as a long time Zelda fan, I honestly would probably rank it higher than Wind Waker and Twilight Princess.  Maybe even OoT...

That is fine and good, but SM64 didn't pretend to be SMWs sequel, nor did any of the other games you mentioned. PH was meant to be a a Wind Waker sequel for DS with Wind Waker's world shrunk down into handheld size.

[UncleBob]

I think some people have a different definition to sequel.  Regardless, if I wanted to play a game that was just like Wind Waker, I can play Wind Waker and save myself $30.  I'm glad Nintendo choose to go a different direction with this game.

So... let's go with something that's a more direct sequel - Majora's Mask.  It featured pretty much none of the characters or lands from OoT.  It had entirely different game mechanics from OoT.  (minor Majora's Mask spoilers) ...and at the end of Majora's Mask, nothing had changed in Hyrule or with our main characters - one of which wasn't even really featured in the game. So, would it be fair to trash Majora's Mask because it wasn't Ocarina of Time?

[Maverick]

Exactly, PH is to WW as MM was to OOT and LA was to ALTTP.  I wasn't expecting anything more from a Zelda "direct sequel".  In fact, this actually has a lot in common with LA in some regards.

[Ian Sane]

"It's not the score of the review that some of us have a problem with - it's how the game seems to be attacked for crazy reasons."

I see some of this but I also see a lot of knee jerk "how dare you say anything bad about a Nintendo game" stuff.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Maverick
Exactly, PH is to WW as MM was to OOT and LA was to ALTTP.  I wasn't expecting anything more from a Zelda "direct sequel".  In fact, this actually has a lot in common with LA in some regards.

Except the part about it taking on the exact same world with the exact same theme, with the exact same method of travel (just dumbed down). MM took place in an alternate NEW world not to mention had unique gameplay. PH is Wind Waker with touch controls for handheld gamers. Even LA went in a different direction from LoZ and Zelda 2, not to mention it was a brand new world. PH would have benefited greatly IMO if it took place in its own world, heck it has been so long since we've seen Hyrule imagined in 2D form. When Minish Cap has a more unique world and yes, gameplay (Besides some of the touch screen uses) you know you have problems.

[Maverick]

PH isn't revisiting any of the old locals, so it is a "new world", but it definitely does share the same theme.  The similarities to LA that I was referring to was more of a story thing.  How is MM's gameplay unique compared to OOT?  It had the same controls, unless you're referring to to the time limit, which PH also has, but not to the extent of MM.

[LuigiHann]

IT'S TOO SIMILAR TO WIND WAKER AND ALSO TOO DIFFERENT.  

[UncleBob]

"How is MM's gameplay unique compared to OOT? It had the same controls, unless you're referring to to the time limit"

The time limit is one aspect, but the fact that about 1/2 the game is sidequests and the entire transforming into different species thing, all combined with the time limit really made the fundamental game play of Majora's Mask quite different than OoT.

"PH is Wind Waker with touch controls for handheld gamers."

GP, I think this is the basic aspect of your point of view that, in turn, really destroys your entire arguement - Phantom Hourglass is *not* Wind Waker.  Face it, we all know Nintendo does not have a problem with re-releasing games on a different platform and making minor (or no) changes to them.  And when they do, they pretty much keep the same name (or some variation on it).  That's not what Phantom Hourglass is - nor is it what the game was meant to be (as far as I can tell, at least...  you know, the entire lack of the game actually having "The Wind Waker" in it could be throwing me off though).

Sometimes I wonder if you're just another one of Super's dupe accounts....  

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: vudu April 4, 2007

Good find.

Quote
People are very opinionated..myself extremely..but it's not bitching.. more so debating/discussion.

that's what the point about reading a review and talking aobut it is all about. If you do'nt agree with it...you say why not.

There's nothing wrong with being opinionated. It's the posts which outright attack the reviewer which pose a problem.

And I mention it because it seems like the poor reviewers here can BARELY get one past the "goal line", if you know what I mean.

[IceCold]

Quote
Alright, I'm sorry. I may have overreacted. Being one of the new guys, I'm not accustomed to having my review torn to pieces by the masses I write for.

Better than apathy, don't you think?

[Maverick]

Yes, Hallbred will go down in history as the reviewer who only moderately liked Phantom Hourglass!

And good point about the masks and such in MM, UncleBob, for some reason I didn't think about that at all.  I was too busy trying to argue that PH is so different control wise that it's a unique experience form WW.

[cubist]

I bought the game when it came out...but my brother the leaching Zelda fan started on it.  He and I have the same opinion about Zelda titles and he thinks this is better than both Wind Waker and Twilight Princess both.  I'm going to play through it myself to rank it.  I just hope that this review isn't based on the disagreement with the control scheme...you'd lose all credibility as a reviewer if that's the case.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBob
"How is MM's gameplay unique compared to OOT? It had the same controls, unless you're referring to to the time limit"

The time limit is one aspect, but the fact that about 1/2 the game is sidequests and the entire transforming into different species thing, all combined with the time limit really made the fundamental game play of Majora's Mask quite different than OoT.

"PH is Wind Waker with touch controls for handheld gamers."

GP, I think this is the basic aspect of your point of view that, in turn, really destroys your entire arguement - Phantom Hourglass is *not* Wind Waker.  Face it, we all know Nintendo does not have a problem with re-releasing games on a different platform and making minor (or no) changes to them.  And when they do, they pretty much keep the same name (or some variation on it).  That's not what Phantom Hourglass is - nor is it what the game was meant to be (as far as I can tell, at least...  you know, the entire lack of the game actually having "The Wind Waker" in it could be throwing me off though).

Sometimes I wonder if you're just another one of Super's dupe accounts....

Perhaps you missed the part about its plot being tied DIRECTLY to Wind Waker, and it taking place in the exact same setting except miniaturized. Oh yeah and there is this part about the designer himself saying it was a direct sequel to Wind Waker. They dumbed down the sailing mechanics to drawing lines, you still go to different "islands" although this time you draw your line to a port on that island, heck they even limit where you travel with a very forced and linear mechanic (the tornado taking you back). That isn't even getting into the visual style which is 100% wind waker just taken down a notch for the DS. So what if it doesn't have The Wind Waker? At least that was an interesting item, not some gameplay device to explain a terribly tedious timed dungeon, at least Ocarina, Majora, and Wind Waker had an interesting item that impacted you throughout the game. Really though what makes PH so unique? Take out the basic "control" touch, what do you really have?  

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: cubist
I bought the game when it came out...but my brother the leaching Zelda fan started on it.  He and I have the same opinion about Zelda titles and he thinks this is better than both Wind Waker and Twilight Princess both.  I'm going to play through it myself to rank it.  I just hope that this review isn't based on the disagreement with the control scheme...you'd lose all credibility as a reviewer if that's the case.

That is pretty ridiculous, when something is as basic as control, why can't you judge a game on it? If it feels like a gimmick, and may even hamper gameplay, why does that make it a credibility issue?

[UncleBob]

>"Perhaps you missed the part about its plot being tied DIRECTLY to Wind Waker"

In that it takes place after Wind Waker with Link and Tetra exploring.  That's the only "tie" to Wind Waker the game says it has. "We did Wind Waker, now we're looking elsewhere".  That's it.

>"and it taking place in the exact same setting except miniaturized."

Except that it's not the "exact same setting" at all.  In fact, as the manual says that while exploring, "they happen upon seas protected by [...] the Ocean King."  Seems like a different location to me.  Unless you think the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean are the "exact same setting, except miniaturized."

>"Oh yeah and there is this part about the designer himself saying it was a direct sequel to Wind Waker. "

Yeah, and, again, both Majora's Mask and Link's Awakening were said to be direct sequels, yet they didn't really involve their previous games, short of mentioning the events of the previous game.

>"heck they even limit where you travel with a very forced and linear mechanic (the tornado taking you back)."

Oh, yeah, that sucks almost as bad as your talking ship just telling you that you shouldn't go in a particular direction yet.

>"At least [the Wind Waker] was an interesting item"

What?  It was a stick you played music with.  It was about as interesting as the weeds you picked in Twilight Princess.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBob
>

>"At least [the Wind Waker] was an interesting item"

What?  It was a stick you played music with.  It was about as interesting as the weeds you picked in Twilight Princess.

A lot better then the Phantom Hourglass which does nothing except create an excuse for a timed dungeon. Also in Wind Waker the ocean opened up pretty fast and it was vast, in PH you can sail across it in a couple of minutes if you get all of it unlocked.