Sooo, rehashes you say...

Well well, looks like GameSpot likes a rehash of a 10 years old FPS in upgraded graphics better than a *fully new* Zelda title with *well implemented and totaly not broken* controls.

So much for the credibility of this site :lol:

God, you're still harping on about the supposedlack of credibility of this site?

They're two different genres held to different standards.

And funnily enough, Zelda got criticised for being "more of the same" when Halo CEA literally is "more of the same".

So Zelda isn't entirely new.

If the scores don't agree with you, don't keep tabs on them or use a different site that happens the score the games the way you want them. :|

It doesn't work like that. Halo: Anniversary was reviewed as an HD rerelease and the grade is based upon how well this new edition was handled, while Zelda's grade was based upon how this new, full-fledged Zelda installment lived up to its expectations and legacy.

Who cares anyway, they're just numbers.

Well well, looks like GameSpot likes a rehash of a 10 years old FPS in upgraded graphics better than a *fully new* Zelda title with *well implemented and totaly not broken* controls.

So much for the credibility of this site :lol:

nameless12345

Yet another Zelda thread? You have to let this one go, the game got a 7.5, however its only one review.

You don't have to use this site if you don't want to.

because a 7.5 is very far from an 8.0 game?ohthemanatee

In system wars:

8: barely worth playing

< 8: completely not worth your time

It isn't even the Zelda thing that has me questioning the credibility of this site. They(GS) seem to have lost touch with the 10 point scale, over the years. They started overscoring games, and then within the last few months realized they can't start giving out tens like crazy, so they began underscoring to balance things out. They need to start judging games, on the game in question, alone. For example: MW3 probably has more content than MW2, and therefore is the better product. They are assuming that EVERYBODY in the world owns MW2, when you look at the review of MW3. Guess what, I don't own ANY MW games, but looking at the scores I should pick up MW*2*, correct?

*This also plays into Toms Zelda review, as he complains about rehash, supposedly.

Put your dummy back in Nameless.

...now now, theres a good lad!

[QUOTE="ohthemanatee"]because a 7.5 is very far from an 8.0 game?R4gn4r0k

In system wars:

8: barely worth playing

< 8: completely not worth your time

The mechanics of Halo CE remake are 10 years old.

The mechanics of Zelda SS are 25 years old.

The 15 year gap is more than enough to warrant a difference of 0.5 in the score.

It's a rerelease, to expect it to be fresh would be to lie to yourself. People who buy Halo CE rereleased don't expect freshness, they expect refinement. Not that I think SS has any less freshness, but that's the core idea.

The mechanics of Halo CE remake are 10 years old.

The mechanics of Zelda SS are 25 years old.

The 15 year gap is more than enough to warrant a difference of 0.5 in the score.

call_of_duty_10

That may be the most silly comment I've read on the internet. It's just mind-boggingly wrong.

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"]

The mechanics of Halo CE remake are 10 years old.

The mechanics of Zelda SS are 25 years old.

The 15 year gap is more than enough to warrant a difference of 0.5 in the score.

calvinsora

That may be the most silly comment I've read on the internet. It's just mind-boggingly wrong.

Please elaborate why.I honestly cannot see how SS' game mechanics are not old.

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"]

The mechanics of Halo CE remake are 10 years old.

The mechanics of Zelda SS are 25 years old.

The 15 year gap is more than enough to warrant a difference of 0.5 in the score.

call_of_duty_10

That may be the most silly comment I've read on the internet. It's just mind-boggingly wrong.

For one, the mechanics were drastically changed going from LttP to Ocarina. Now, the addition of M+ controls is switching it up again, to some extent at least.

The mechanics of Halo CE remake are 10 years old.

The mechanics of Zelda SS are 25 years old.

call_of_duty_10

You're wrong actually. Halo's mechanics are 31 years old. Here is evidence:

Click

:P

[QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"]

[QUOTE="ohthemanatee"]because a 7.5 is very far from an 8.0 game?WTaekoW

In system wars:

8: barely worth playing

< 8: completely not worth your time

True. It is really sad when people only take the score into account and not even the contents of the review.

They think they are only playing the best games because they play those that scored 8 and up. But at the end of the day they miss out on a lot of games that way.

Because everyone must have noticed that your opinion does not always = the reviewers opinion.

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"]

The mechanics of Halo CE remake are 10 years old.

The mechanics of Zelda SS are 25 years old.

The 15 year gap is more than enough to warrant a difference of 0.5 in the score.

call_of_duty_10

That may be the most silly comment I've read on the internet. It's just mind-boggingly wrong.

Please elaborate why.I honestly cannot see how SS' game mechanics are not old.

The first Zelda is a 2D game, with 8-bit graphics, a tiny memory, a convoluted overmap, and a button-configuration.

Skyward Sword is 3D, with a cel-shaded animation, full motion control and a lot more variety.

If you're talking about general goals (treasure-hunting and exploration), then I could argue that Halo has the same mechanics as Wolfenstein 3D, released 19 years ago. It's the same argument.

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"]

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

That may be the most silly comment I've read on the internet. It's just mind-boggingly wrong.

calvinsora

Please elaborate why.I honestly cannot see how SS' game mechanics are not old.

The first Zelda is a 2D game, with 8-bit graphics, a tiny memory, a convoluted overmap, and a button-configuration.

Skyward Sword is 3D, with a cel-shaded animation, full motion control and a lot more variety.

If you're talking about general goals (treasure-hunting and exploration), then I could argue that Halo has the same mechanics as Wolfenstein 3D, released 19 years ago. It's the same argument.

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] While I do not mind it when someone does not agree with me,I always expect to hear the reason for it.

Please elaborate why.I honestly cannot see how SS' game mechanics are not old.

call_of_duty_10

The first Zelda is a 2D game, with 8-bit graphics, a tiny memory, a convoluted overmap, and a button-configuration.

Skyward Sword is 3D, with a cel-shaded animation, full motion control and a lot more variety.

If you're talking about general goals (treasure-hunting and exploration), then I could argue that Halo has the same mechanics as Wolfenstein 3D, released 19 years ago. It's the same argument.

The controls are indeed part of the mechanics if the controls considerably change the ergonomics of the game system itself. Take for instance Dragon Age Origins. The game is actually quite different between the PC on one hand and the consoles on the other. The reason for this is the control system. Different control systems often demand drastically different mechanics. In the same way, a full one-on-one control scheme gives completely different possibilities of interaction in the game.

I don't care for voice-acting in my Zelda games, don't ever want it. A thing being common on some grounds does not mean it is a universal standard, some games are just better without it. I'd say the same about general story, I don't want all my games to have big elaborate storylines, I'd rather want a game that is focused on gameplay instead. The towns also aren't empty, though again, I don't see how that is bad.

I'd say the major difference is exactly how you interact with the game, much of it has changed between generations and I'd say there were paradigm shifts between some of the Zelda titles. That's why I for instance love WW a lot more than OoT. I also like MM more than OoT, while we're on the subject.

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"][QUOTE="calvinsora"]

The first Zelda is a 2D game, with 8-bit graphics, a tiny memory, a convoluted overmap, and a button-configuration.

Skyward Sword is 3D, with a cel-shaded animation, full motion control and a lot more variety.

If you're talking about general goals (treasure-hunting and exploration), then I could argue that Halo has the same mechanics as Wolfenstein 3D, released 19 years ago. It's the same argument.

calvinsora

The controls are indeed part of the mechanics if the controls considerably change the ergonomics of the game system itself. Take for instance Dragon Age Origins. The game is actually quite different between the PC on one hand and the consoles on the other. The reason for this is the control system. Different control systems often demand drastically different mechanics. In the same way, a full one-on-one control scheme gives completely different possibilities of interaction in the game.

The core gameplay of dragon age is the same on all platforms.You talk to your companions,the combat is same on all platforms,you have to do the same quests in the same way...etc

Its not like DAO on consoles feels like demons souls.

Its easier to play with KB/M but the gameplay is same.

I don't care for voice-acting in my Zelda games, don't ever want it. A thing being common on some grounds does not mean it is a universal standard, some games are just better without it. I'd say the same about general story, I don't want all my games to have big elaborate storylines, I'd rather want a game that is focused on gameplay instead. The towns also aren't empty, though again, I don't see how that is bad.

You do not care about voice acting.Maybe no one does.But that doesn't change the fact that it is present in all games and if a game does not have it,it WILL feel old.

And how can you say that story won't enhance the experience?A good story(along with good story telling) can make even the most boring areas interesting.Story is what makes progression in games fun.I am not saying that story>gameplay,but a good story can make the game even better.

The gameplay is part of the mechanics of DOA, so a change in the way you play the game in effect changes how the game plays overall. Though this may go into a simple semantics debate if anything else.

Lack of voice acting to me doesn't equate old. I just don't see the connection. It's like calling all 2D games old simply because that was the norm back then. It may have been a technical limitation back then, but not having voice acting is now a simple matter of choice and prioritization.

As for story, I can't agree that it only acts as an enhancement. I've had games that have felt worse in part because of their story. I'll use an example: God of War. The game is in many ways a holy cow, I cannot speak ill of it without being lashed at. However, I felt the story in that game greatly broke down the pacing and impeded the overall experience. Let's put this in perspective. Super Mario Galaxy 2 is without a doubt my favorite game of this generation. If Nintendo had decided to put a story in there, they would have interrupted the flow of the game itself, taking the focus off of what it did so exuberantly well. That was one of my few problems with the original Super Mario Galaxy, it tried to cram a story into the mix to (IMO) ill effect. It wasn't a bad story in some parts, it was just unnecessary. Not every game needs a story is my point. I do love a good one, after all, MGS4 is one of my favorite games ever, but when it's not necessary, it shouldn't be there period.

Can we please stop with the Zelda threads already? It isn't a perfect game, far from it, I actually own it since last week. It IS the same since the N64 days, sorry to tell you and as hard as it might sound, CoD evolved more than Zelda :/ Maybe some people just need to have a look at such games without nostalgia / fanboy eyes, especially those who haven't played it at all. And don't forget, it's just one person, there are tons of reviewer out there that give a 9-10 for every Zelda title until the franchise dies

Can we please stop with the Zelda threads already? It isn't a perfect game, far from it, I actually own it since last week. It IS the same since the N64 days, sorry to tell you and as hard as it might sound, CoD evolved more than Zelda :/ Maybe some people just need to have a look at such games without nostalgia / fanboy eyes, especially those who haven't played it at all. And don't forget, it's just one person, there are tons of reviewer out there that give a 9-10 for every Zelda title until the franchise dies

ArchoNils2

Luckily, the N64 days were amazing. This is coming from a guy that played OoT for the first time last year, so no nostalgia here.

Zelda: Skyward Sword is just a typical rehash Zelda game.......and that is sad.AtariKidX

That was TP. Again, SS is drastically different from most Zelda games, even without mentioning the one-on-one combat.

Zelda: Skyward Sword is just a typical rehash Zelda game.......and that is sad.AtariKidX

What, did you want Nintendo to give Link a squirt gun or something? The formula works, in a lot of ways actually. Drama, be it in film, play, etc, tends to work in the same way.

Its reason for development was to be a remake, that's why it was reviewed appropriately as such, Zelda SS wasn't a remake of anything, it was a highly hyped next in line Zelda title. Look at Zelda OoT 3D which got a 8.5, you think it would have gotten such a high score if it would have ben catagorized as some sort of sequel to the first OoT? It's just common sense.

C'mon, cheer up TC, can't be that bad.

Well, yeah, I guess Zelda SS is like flop of the century so g'head, have a good cry.

Oh and Halo CEA should have got the AAA all the way but GS is teh bias I guess. :P

For a minute there my brain didn't have any problem with you guys "questioning the credibility of this site" then I thought about it and said to myself oh yeah reviews are opinions.

i was shocked sesame street and halo remake scored higher....

Shocked@@!!!

You gonna keep putting Soooo before your topics? :P

Anyways, why the hell would you compare the games??? That's like saying Dark Souls>Uncharted 3 just because the score is better, different genres, different opinions.

C'mon, cheer up TC, can't be that bad.

Well, yeah, I guess Zelda SS is like flop of the century so g'head, have a good cry.

Oh and Halo CEA should have got the AAA all the way but GS is teh bias I guess. :P

SecretPolice

you be quiet banjo kazooie is a nintendo franchise.....your eating all that tripe microsoft is feeding you

You gonna keep putting Soooo before your topics? :P

Anyways, why the hell would you compare the games??? That's like saying Dark Souls>Uncharted 3 just because the score is better, different genres, different opinions.

parkurtommo

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"]

C'mon, cheer up TC, can't be that bad.

Well, yeah, I guess Zelda SS is like flop of the century so g'head, have a good cry.

Oh and Halo CEA should have got the AAA all the way but GS is teh bias I guess. :P

KBFloYd

you be quiet banjo kazooie is a nintendo franchise.....your eating all that tripe microsoft is feeding you

but it's best in soup form sooo, just sayin. :)

Well well, looks like GameSpot likes a rehash of a 10 years old FPS in upgraded graphics better than a *fully new* Zelda title with *well implemented and totaly not broken* controls.

So much for the credibility of this site :lol:

nameless12345

I think it is obvious that review was there to troll everyone and no other reason.

Just because its a zelda game, does not subject it automatically to a 10.. or being the best game ever made and such due to so many great games out now..
It will sure as sell tho, considering the target audience.

The Wii is not designed to compete, whereas fanboys try to make zelda look better than GTA4, Dark Souls, Skyrim..etc due to score basis.

Nor does it push the bar for gaming nor does it change the industry.

Halo does this and has done it. Kudos to the developers.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Well well, looks like GameSpot likes a rehash of a 10 years old FPS in upgraded graphics better than a *fully new* Zelda title with *well implemented and totaly not broken* controls.

So much for the credibility of this site :lol:

dr-professional

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Well well, looks like GameSpot likes a rehash of a 10 years old FPS in upgraded graphics better than a *fully new* Zelda title with *well implemented and totaly not broken* controls.

So much for the credibility of this site :lol:

dr-professional

The game has a 9.4 average metacritic rating, it's not doing badly at all :?

[QUOTE="dr-professional"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Well well, looks like GameSpot likes a rehash of a 10 years old FPS in upgraded graphics better than a *fully new* Zelda title with *well implemented and totaly not broken* controls.

So much for the credibility of this site :lol:

calvinsora

The game has a 9.4 average metacritic rating, it's not doing badly at all :?

[QUOTE="dr-professional"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Well well, looks like GameSpot likes a rehash of a 10 years old FPS in upgraded graphics better than a *fully new* Zelda title with *well implemented and totaly not broken* controls.

So much for the credibility of this site :lol:

meetroid8

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

[QUOTE="dr-professional"] To be honest you Zelda fnas hype almost everygame to be the next coming of god and think it will split the seas, so I think it's about time someone smacked some sanity into your heads. Especially with a broken combat system which is broken. Oh and more repetitive dungeons!dr-professional

The game has a 9.4 average metacritic rating, it's not doing badly at all :?

9.4 from critics. C-R-I-T-I-C-S. A 10 from Edge, which is one of the best review mags IMO. A 9 from Games TM, another great review team. It won't be going much lower than that, it's that the majority of people absolutely love the game.