Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: 8.8

  1. #11
    Issalroc1234 is offline Junior Member Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    18

    Default

    I'm proud to say that I created 3 serious topics about this in GS's forums. There were so many people rioting the site went down for about 5~10 minutes. Oh yeah, and I reported Jeff and gave "Ridiculous Review" as an answer.

    < By Ramzy through Priya. XD

  2. #12
    Jyuu's Avatar
    Jyuu is offline Super Moderator Community Builder
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,689

    Default

    Gamespot users aren't really bright people.

    I want to kick puppies and kittens whenever I read some posts/comments over there.

    /is reminded of that idiot who thought that the 7950GX2 is a 1GB video card

  3. #13
    Miles Edgeworth is offline Senior Member Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Grand Line
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Well I thought Jeff's review was good, as usual. He's the 2nd best reviewer on that site, No.1 being Greg K. I don't see why Zelda should get any higher really, we've seen it all before already, and you can't keep slapping 9.6-10 on every one of them. That's stupid. Even the Splinter Cell series, which improve with every installment, don't get the same ratings. They drop, because we've seen it before, and it's nothing new.

    Not only that, but Jeff gives the graphics a 9/10, which is BS because it's on a next gen console. And no, it's no one's problem but Nintendo's that Nintendo delayed the game for god knows how long to port the GCN version of the game on the Wii. So if anything, it should have gotten an even lower score. Not only that but they said that Jeff lied about the game being 35-40 hours as it conflicted with some review on www.thehylia.com, and then the reviewer on that site himself came to gamefaqs and posted that he made a mistake, because he beat the game in 32 hours and spent a bunch of time fishing or whatever.

    Basically, there was nothing wrong with the review.

    EDIT: Oh yeah, this is a nice article about it: http://vgrc.ddstuff.com/articles-474.html
    Last edited by Miles Edgeworth; 11-20-2006 at 03:37 AM.

    ^Me after watching Spirited Away, because I discovered the best movie ever!
    Random but good advice: Play Metal Slug.

  4. #14
    Issalroc1234 is offline Junior Member Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jyuu View Post
    Gamespot users aren't really bright people.

    I want to kick puppies and kittens whenever I read some posts/comments over there.

    /is reminded of that idiot who thought that the 7950GX2 is a 1GB video card
    That would explains pretty well why my topics got buried in topics blaming Jeff for Aids, Pearl Harbor and the Holocaust(really, there were many like this).

    Well I thought Jeff's review was good, as usual. He's the 2nd best reviewer on that site, No.1 being Greg K. I don't see why Zelda should get any higher really, we've seen it all before already, and you can't keep slapping 9.6-10 on every one of them. That's stupid. Even the Splinter Cell series, which improve with every installment, don't get the same ratings. They drop, because we've seen it before, and it's nothing new.

    Not only that, but Jeff gives the graphics a 9/10, which is BS because it's on a next gen console. And no, it's no one's problem but Nintendo's that Nintendo delayed the game for god knows how long to port the GCN version of the game on the Wii. So if anything, it should have gotten an even lower score. Not only that but they said that Jeff lied about the game being 35-40 hours as it conflicted with some review on www.thehylia.com, and then the reviewer on that site himself came to gamefaqs and posted that he made a mistake, because he beat the game in 32 hours and spent a bunch of time fishing or whatever.

    Basically, there was nothing wrong with the review.

    EDIT: Oh yeah, this is a nice article about it: http://vgrc.ddstuff.com/articles-474.html
    That's the whole irony, due to idiot fanboys, actual criticism is considered fanboyism. I haven't played the game yet, but Jeff disagred with all the other reviews. He made ridiculous claims like "Zelda should have voice acting", I belive voice acting isn't there by stylish reasons, and well he basically claimed TP was too Zeldaish. I know he was the guy that rated OoT 10 and WW 9.3 and I don't think he is biased against Zelda(but he is a complete failure with the Wii control, check the video I posted for an example).

    And that article is garbage, I don't check reviews to see if they agree with me, I check so I won't download and burn shitty games. And reviews aren't exclusively about opinions, GS even has a TILT score that would be more apropriate, reviews are about avaliating a game, for example: You hate rock and therefore you give every game of the Tony Hawk series a horrible sound score. That isn't what a reviewer should do, he should avaliate the game trying to keep his opinions to himself or to some other score(in GS's case most apropriate would be Tilt).

    < By Ramzy through Priya. XD

  5. #15
    StealDragon's Avatar
    StealDragon is offline Super Moderator Community Builder
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NCC-1701
    Posts
    13,424

    Default

    isnt this exactly why they have an average User rating score? i mean what does his score matter if you have 20,000 people who rate it at 9.4 or something


    I'd like to die with the songs I love stuck in my head. I hope to make the most of these hollow bones we become.
    I raise a toast to the the souls that sang all along. I've been gathering friends to just to make some sounds,
    before the ship goes down, I've been making amends by making the rounds before the whole world ends


    [Chit Chat Specific Forum Rules] // Last Update - Friday March 13, 2009

  6. #16
    Issalroc1234 is offline Junior Member Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StealDragon View Post
    isnt this exactly why they have an average User rating score? i mean what does his score matter if you have 20,000 people who rate it at 9.4 or something
    9.3, but I tend not to agree with that because fanboys screw these things(Zelda and Nintendo fanboys give it high ratings without playing and other fanboys give very low ratings). Have a look at this review:
    http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/t...html?id=387312
    Look at this dude, he gave FFXII and World of Warcraft 1.0 :
    http://www.gamespot.com/users/DRUNK_CANADIAN
    He gave the game a 5.0, he had absolutely no points to make and from the extreme vagueness of the review I can bet he never played it.
    Last edited by Issalroc1234; 11-20-2006 at 08:28 AM.

    < By Ramzy through Priya. XD

  7. #17
    Miles Edgeworth is offline Senior Member Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Grand Line
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Issalroc1234 View Post
    That would explains pretty well why my topics got buried in topics blaming Jeff for Aids, Pearl Harbor and the Holocaust(really, there were many like this).


    That's the whole irony, due to idiot fanboys, actual criticism is considered fanboyism. I haven't played the game yet, but Jeff disagred with all the other reviews. He made ridiculous claims like "Zelda should have voice acting", I belive voice acting isn't there by stylish reasons, and well he basically claimed TP was too Zeldaish. I know he was the guy that rated OoT 10 and WW 9.3 and I don't think he is biased against Zelda(but he is a complete failure with the Wii control, check the video I posted for an example).

    And that article is garbage, I don't check reviews to see if they agree with me, I check so I won't download and burn shitty games. And reviews aren't exclusively about opinions, GS even has a TILT score that would be more apropriate, reviews are about avaliating a game, for example: You hate rock and therefore you give every game of the Tony Hawk series a horrible sound score. That isn't what a reviewer should do, he should avaliate the game trying to keep his opinions to himself or to some other score(in GS's case most apropriate would be Tilt).

    Tilt is the only one that got a 10, so you would say it's appropriate? I know reviews aren't all about opinions, but Jeff layed down facts as to why the game wasn't all that.

    He was toughest on sound, mainly because there was no voice acting. Dude, games today have voice acting, sure link is a silent hero, but as jeff said, that doesn't mean everyone else should be too. It's a valid complaint even though personally I don't mind the lack of voice acting a single bit. But that's just me, games today have voice acting, and he said the game hasn't evolved. Well there ya have it, it hasn't evolved and we've all seen OoT before, so...why exactly should this game get a revolutionary score? It's gameplay is the same as other Zeldas, it's still lacking in voice acting, and it's still with GCN graphics despite being on the Wii. There is absolutely no reason for it to get a higher score.

    OoT was revolutionary, TP: Not revolutionary. WW tried something very unique with the cel shading and enormous attention to detal, and it had some original gameplay concepts not introduced in other games before. It got a 9.3, not a 10 though, because it too wasn't that big of a deal compared to how OoT was. But with TP, it's now getting old. Sure, we love the series, and I'm sure any Zelda fan will love TP, despite the fact that it's been done before in all the previous Zelda games, but the fact remains that the formula has been done. It's something we've all seen before, and therefore it can be left at 8.8. You can't have the best score when all the devolopers are doing is taking the same formula and putting new skins and a new script.

    Also, he mentioned the Wii controls, which he said were good, but not as responsive as a button would be. Is that hard to believe?

    Another thing is how just because every other site gave the game high ratings, people believe the only one who didn't is "wrong" all of a sudden. Actually, IGN is a pretty crappy site imo because they rate games too high half the time. GS is tougher on games, and that's how it should be. I trust those guys and from my personal experience, they never let me down. Sure, occasionally they say a game is mediocre, but I know that I will like and I still end up getting it and enjoying it. But when they say a game sucks, it usually does. Not like they said Zelda sucks anyway, as the best games I've ever played hadn't gotten more than 8ish. Also, if you round up all of IGNs numbers, they make an 8.7, but they give the "overall" score as 9.5? Yeah, their rating system really rocks doesn't it. But if the big red number is 9.5, it doesn't matter right? Despite the fact that the parts that made up this score consist of even less than gamespot's score. GG.

    ^Me after watching Spirited Away, because I discovered the best movie ever!
    Random but good advice: Play Metal Slug.

  8. #18
    Issalroc1234 is offline Junior Member Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    18

    Default

    No, the thing is that IGN's review(yes, they are too soft sometimes, and I'd consider the 0.8 difference mainly as their tilt score, since not all aspects can be translated to the other categories) is much better written and he actualy makes legitimate complaints, like the music. And not having voices is mainly a stylish reason I belive, I'm not a big fan of Voice-Acting myself but I do admit it fits some games, but this isn't the case with TP.
    And I would consider the control revolutionary( and there's also playing with Wolf Link), if you think Jeff has a point it's because you haven't seen him playing. I watched GS's whole Wii marathon, and I can say Jeff is horrible with the motion sensing controller.
    Quote Originally Posted by Me
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfBrPCWb9pg
    This is one of the less pathetic moments
    I'm not comparing the ratings, read my posts, that's the irony, the review was mediocre and now all criticism is seen as "Everyone said it was good! The fat man lies!!111". He had horrible points that contradicted what other reviewers said, the score is not the problem. Personally I think 8.8 is absolutely awesome for a GC game ported to the Wii, my problem is that it gets a 8.8 because of the wrong reasons.
    One of the biggest spotlights of TP was the story and puzzles, from what I've seen everything looks much more intricated, put that together with playing with the Wolf, twilight zones, motion controller, the new darker atmosphere, mounted combat and the whole animal-summoning thing.
    It's much more complex game than the other Zeldas, do not treat the game as if didn't evolve, the gameplay isn't the same as before. Yes, it's got the Zelda base from the N64, but OoT and MM didn't have any of the things I listed above. Wolf Link and Twilight games are great gameplay evolutions, but motion sensing is revolutionary, it's a huge step from a game simply driven by buttons, comparable from the move from 2d to 3d, though I have to admit motion sensing swordfighting isn't 1:1, but it still is a great step to gaming.
    Last edited by Issalroc1234; 11-20-2006 at 09:33 AM.

    < By Ramzy through Priya. XD

  9. #19
    Miles Edgeworth is offline Senior Member Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Grand Line
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Oh yeah, that is revolutionary, but it isn't Zelda's doing. The motion sensing is part of the Wii, it's not something that Zelda, the game, has come up with. It wasn't made soley for Zelda, and as such, it's not really a revolutionary thing for Zelda or the genre. The Wii will have motion sensing for pretty much all its games, from adventure to FPS. So that's not really a point up for Zelda. When jeff reviews the controls, he's actually telling us how compatible Zelda is with the hardware and how well they were implemented, as they are a part of the system you are using, and have to use, in order to play the game.

    As for the voice acting, I think it's about time for nintendo to give it a shot. Do you think Zelda should be a game with no VA forever? When all the games later on will have fully voiced cutscenes and talking? Zelda is a launch game for a next generation console. If next generation means anything in terms of gaming, it will mean voice acting. Nintendo can do it if anything, it can put voice acting in Zelda and it can make it GOOD.

    So all his reasons for docking points are valid, pretty much. And you just said the sword fighting isn't 1:1, and so did Jeff. He didn't say the controls were terrible, instead he said they worked pretty well but can be difficult at times where too much precision in timing is needed.

    Oh yeah, and I saw the vid...not much to say other than that it's two people using the Wiimote and they are obviously new to it. Not surprising since the system itself is new. And Jeff did better than the other guy did.

    EDIT: Also I would like to mention that when he said the game was too "Zeldaish" he pretty much meant it hasn't changed a bit, not even voice acting was added, and the graphics were same old Zelda. Not that this is a bad thing, but he said it was dissappointing that they didn't add more to the presentation (i.e voice acting, better quality sound track, maybe graphics, etc).
    Last edited by Miles Edgeworth; 11-20-2006 at 09:53 AM.

    ^Me after watching Spirited Away, because I discovered the best movie ever!
    Random but good advice: Play Metal Slug.

  10. #20
    Issalroc1234 is offline Junior Member Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Miles Edgeworth View Post
    Oh yeah, that is revolutionary, but it isn't Zelda's doing. The motion sensing is part of the Wii, it's not something that Zelda, the game, has come up with. It wasn't made soley for Zelda, and as such, it's not really a revolutionary thing for Zelda or the genre. The Wii will have motion sensing for pretty much all its games, from adventure to FPS. So that's not really a point up for Zelda. When jeff reviews the controls, he's actually telling us how compatible Zelda is with the hardware and how well they were implemented, as they are a part of the system you are using, and have to use, in order to play the game.

    As for the voice acting, I think it's about time for nintendo to give it a shot. Do you think Zelda should be a game with no VA forever? When all the games later on will have fully voiced cutscenes and talking? Zelda is a launch game for a next generation console. If next generation means anything in terms of gaming, it will mean voice acting. Nintendo can do it if anything, it can put voice acting in Zelda and it can make it GOOD.

    So all his reasons for docking points are valid, pretty much. And you just said the sword fighting isn't 1:1, and so did Jeff. He didn't say the controls were terrible, instead he said they worked pretty well but can be difficult at times where too much precision in timing is needed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff
    But normally you can just keep on shaking the Wii Remote like a maniac and come out on top against most enemies. There's no finesse to the way the Wii Remote is used, and at times you'll wish that you could just hit a button to swing the sword instead of dealing with all the motion-sensing nonsense. This is especially true in the rare cases that require you to time your sword swings properly, as well as once you start learning a few extra moves, like the shield bash, which is done by shoving the Nunchuk controller forward. Most of the time, performing this move resulted in a spin attack. The combat controls using the Wii Remote may feel somewhat different from past games, but it doesn't draw you into the experience any more than using a standard controller would, and at worst, it's imprecise.
    He says the opposite of all other reviews regarding the controller, just by watching the video I posted you can grasp the amount of trouble he was having.

    And 3d wasn't also made for OoT, it was Zelda's transition to 3d, this is Zelda's transition to a new level of interaction that will open new horizons, like 3d did(of course it still doesn't have the same graphic appeal, but the level of imersion is greatly expanded).

    I belive voice acting is something that varies according to the person, I personally think they could spend those resources on more important parts of development. And there's also the Zelda style, not only in art and sound, but also characters and minor details, like walking up to signs and pressing a button to read them. They could have changed that, but they didn't.
    Last edited by Issalroc1234; 11-20-2006 at 10:40 AM.

    < By Ramzy through Priya. XD

 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
vBulletin Skin by: ForumThemes.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79