Spirit Tracks is a garbage game tho
MGS was easily a better game
Wind waker is all charm little substance
Dearest thicc_girls_are_teh_best .
If you can't notice the difference between sponsored "reviews" and random non affiliated footage/impression then I don't know what to say.
Enjoy your hyped up reviews I guess.
Ow and there's nuance at play. Most of the time negative stuff of TEH EXPERIENZE is brought in such a way it doesn't seem an issue. No name YouTube players aren't the same.
Nintendo fans are fucking insane, holy shit.This is what happened when ONE reviewer gave a less than glowing review to a Zelda game and it still got a 8.8...
Indeed. The level of polish + quality that Nintendo brings to the Zelda formula is another thing that further distinguishes it from all the copy-cats.Good answer. I would also add that the dedication to craft is also a major factor. Everything is, hardware permitting, of a very high standard, from design, to art, to controls and the robustness of the engine/code itself. The quality level for Zelda titles is difficult to match and you can see that in its many inferior clones.
I can spot the difference quite well, but you're making it sound like the former constitutes the bulk of reviews for ND/R*/Nintendo games and that's a big claim to make.
If you have some actual examples of reviews doing that, I'd like to see them. Not saying they don't exist, just that the majority are likely genuine even if they're also mindful of publisher relationships. And we have examples of reviewers who go in the opposite direction simply for attention as well, being contrarian simply for the sake of it.
Those examples don't make up the majority, either, but every once in a while you can see a pattern develop suggesting it's the case and then things get handled from there. I.e Stevivor (or for an older example, some Amiga magazines dinging late Team 17 games because they didn't get review copies or early access).
Not my intention to set out any big claims. Lost my trust in gaming sites a long, long time ago, hence my cynicism.
There are so many "reviewers" whether operating from within a corporation or independently.
I don't know where the fuck to look to find someone which views/tastes resonate with mine.
Fuck looking for something that resonates.
Couple minutes of gameplay. Maybe read up on whatever and I'm done.
That whole IGN/Whatever preview/review part surely fueled the hype fire 20 years ago that's for sure.
Zelda has a magic feel to it, something most games don’t have. And most the time they bring it.
Yeah it will have issues but it is out weighted by the awesomeness.
It does not have a magic feeling, it's all nostalgia. I never played Zelda on the NES or the SNES, and by the time I got OoT I was thinking the game was good but that I didn't understand why everyone was so hyped up about it.
Nintendo games are primarily reviewed by Nintendo fans, and Nintendo fans tend to not play outside the ecosystem.
They score well because they are great games. I will agree that skyward sword sucked but I think TP is one of the best Zelda's out there. I'd probably put 3rd behind OoT and a link to the past.I am thinking mostly from the Gamecube and Wii generation. Yes, Wind Waker was an achievement in graphics and deserves its high scores, but Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword did bring nothing special to the table imo. They are not 90-95+ games. It felt more like, here is a brand new zelda, it will score 10/10 automatically. yes some Zelda games are really awesome while it seems that others just surf on the brandname.
Do Review publications have a tendency to overscore Zelda games? What's your thoughts.
This is literally you saying the game art combination is not for you, which is ok, RDR and those realistic slow games bore me to dead and they're still highly regarded, it's ok to not like thingsIt does not have a magic feeling, it's all nostalgia. I never played Zelda on the NES or the SNES, and by the time I got OoT I was thinking the game was good but that I didn't understand why everyone was so hyped up about it.
I understand the pessimism, but for me I tend to look at smaller reviewers or content creators I like to watch, who may have played the game, and see what they say. Another thing I do is wait until the launch hype dies down and see what's said afterwards when things have cooled down.
If it's a game in a long-running IP I also look at retrospective analysis of previous entries just to get a full-informed understanding of the IP's history, if it's one I'm not completely familiar with but may have a new installment releasing I'm interested in playing. That way I at least have a good bearing on if the new game will be to my tastes.
Some of the cynicism you have IMO, I'm sure older gamers back in the '00s or '90s had for game magazine reviews especially "official" magazines like Nintendo Power, Official PlayStation Magazine etc. So it's not a new problem, it's just due to the internet & social media there are a lot more reviewers than there used to be. Which means more BS, but you still have the genuine reviewers around.
Personally for reviews I read to see what things they were looking for out of the game, if I even prioritize those, if they stayed in the scope of the game when reviewing it, if there was any sly agenda-pushing in the review (either idpol or corporate shilling, or both), and take the reviewer's game preferences and past reviews into account before deciding whether to even acknowledge or discard their review for myself. Even if I consider it, those things will help determine whether I take their scores at face value or a point or two up/down (on a 10-point scale) considering whatever was actually said in the review.
You can still be optimistic about it all even while acknowledging the shortcomings of the review system today. At least it's somewhat better with games versus, say, the film industry (though yeah, they've been converging more and more with each year in terms of review credibility, to the detriment of the gaming side).