Comments on: Gamespot’s Reponse To Zelda Review Criticism

By: Vukers

Vukers — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:56:28 +0000

Or maybe they purposely gave a bad review to drive extra traffic to the site.

When you click on Gamerankings, you quickly get bored of the same 100%/A reviews, praising the same things. But you see a 8.8, and you say to yourself, “I wonder why he gave such a low score”.

Traffic = more money from Advertisers regardless of why they are there.

By: Anuban

Anuban — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 19:44:06 +0000

Come on guys … if I can realize I was being an arrogant dumbass and really make an effort to change my ways and be more patient with people and less confrontational I know you can do the same. There is NO need to get personal or say mean spirited things. Just agree to disagree so things don’t get ugly. And why should they … we are all gamers regardless of what our personal opinions on a particular game or hardware or whatever may be. I know I was wrong in some instances … the way I behaved I should say so enough with the immature behavior … let’s be men and women here and if we can’t seem to agree just say so without calling eachother out of our respective names and making insults. I know WE ARE ALL BETTER than such ridiculously infantile behavior … God at least I hope we are. Let’s play nice from now on please … again if I can come to my senses (which are dull and stupid ) then I know you sharp savy gamers can do likewise. At least make the effort. That’s all I am saying.

By: lionzub

lionzub — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:36:31 +0000

“lol you idiot lionzub.

Why not reply if i’m invalid? ”

I already disproved your arguments. There is nothing more I could say that I haven’t said already. Stop whackin off to Zelda and let’s just agree to disagree.

By: Anuban

Anuban — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 12:22:28 +0000

There is an article about this on the front page but I think most people brushed past it since it says NPD group. I just went and dug up something a bit more descriptive and really to the point. Thanks though.

By: Zac

Zac — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 12:18:29 +0000

Nice post Anuban. Mosre people should post actual stats around here.

By: Anuban

Anuban — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 11:37:21 +0000

That’s cool … I respect your opinions even if there are some times I may not agree with them. In this case you know we are on the say team so it makes things easier for you I am certain.

By: Zac

Zac — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 11:35:56 +0000

But then again… It’s only my opinion..

By: Anuban

Anuban — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 11:31:01 +0000

Man Zac … I guess I am in for a nice treat when I ger Z:TP and that is cool to know. I’m jonesing for my Wii.

By: Zac

Zac — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 11:11:05 +0000

After playing this game for over 16 hours I can honestly say that it’s easily worth over 8.8, at LEAST 92. This reviewer is either out of his mind, extremely biased, or hasn’t played enough of the game to judge it (maybe about 3 minutes, because it’s interesting nearly the whole way through).

By: shadowfox

shadowfox — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:33:44 +0000

since you jeff responded to the critisism u made two points so clear to me:

1-u can make any movie, book, videogame a constructive review by just reading or watching only the intro.

2- microsoft can also buy people.

and again if your life is misirable its got nothing to do with the game.

By: Zac

Zac — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:49:27 +0000

lol you idiot lionzub.

Why not reply if i’m invalid?

By: Quartecks

Quartecks — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:28:19 +0000

Let’s all agree that who ever did this review is a moron, and work our way from there.

By: Anuban

Anuban — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:26:12 +0000

ROFL … can’t we all just get along and have our own thoughts about things … at least that is what I am constantly hearing.

By: lionzub

lionzub — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:17:10 +0000

@Zac

Get off my internet. You’d make everyone in here stupid with your comments (providing they actually read them).

None of your points even came close to disproving mine. I would normally tell you to try again, but I think it hurts your brain too much.

By: The truthsayer

The truthsayer — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:50:39 +0000

rofl, it’s just bad man. The gamespot guy has an opinion: sees nothing new: gives it still a 8,8 (pretty high for a kiddy title) and all the wiiboys scream.. just because resistance: FoM had a higher rating (giggles)

By: Zac

Zac — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:58:27 +0000

““How can you judge a story that’s only been half told?

By: Quartecks

Quartecks — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 00:14:03 +0000

What about Halo? You point a gun and shoot in each one, so I guess Halo 3 must suck. Mario Galaxy? you jump and collect coins, it sucks too. How about Windows Vista?… On second thought that one might be a bad example of originality.

By: lionzub

lionzub — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:19:38 +0000

Well frankly I’ve said all that I needed to say, and he has said all he needed to say. There is nothing really more we can argue about. Anything more is just “flogging a dead horse” as the saying goes.

If he/she does rebuttal I probably won’t bother to read it because it might be as illogical like his last comment.

I think a lot of reviewers sugar coated their reviews because they didn’t want the backlash. Who knows though.

As long as some people enjoy the game, that is all that matters really in the end.

By: Anuban

Anuban — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 19:41:36 +0000

But I can’t agree with your last statement lion … yes all the publications did say the graphics may be GC like but they all praised the artistic beauty of the game and as evidenced by 99% of the reviewers the overall package (which has alot to do with gameplay) is a superior game to just about any other game on the market … irregardless of the platform (HD 360 and PS3 or super PC rig). So it will still appear as if the vast majority of those who have played it find that the gameplay and the story far outweigh the last gen (but very pretty) graphics. True you are not the only one who has the opinion but the greater majority (especially the reviewers) are at odds with your position. As for your other points I’ll leave them between you and Zac. His rebuttal should be quite interesting.

By: lionzub

lionzub — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 17:32:21 +0000

“How can you judge a story that’s only been half told?”
- Very easily actually. By playing the first few hours of the game you are introduced to a lot of story elements during the introduction. One can base the review on how well it is pieced together, or not pieced together, whether or not the story is compelling enough to get you to continue through the game. Think about Resident Evil 4 and how well they introduced the story in that game. You don’t need to complete the whole friggin game to know that a story where you have to save a princess is redundant.

“This is wrong because the gameplay grows on itself through out the game. You cannot judge what you havn’t witnessed.”
- No, I am right again. You failed to read my last statement properly. “Gameplay grows on itself through out the game” that doesn’t make any sense. When you play the game in the beginning you obviously have the same elements to interact with the game. Moving your character, interacting with objects and NPCs, camera angles, how you attack enemies (if attacking is involved), using inventory, switching menus and so on. These gameplay factors don’t “grow”, perhaps later in the game you are able to attack more and walk faster, but it doesn’t mean that if the gameplay is bad at the start that it will be amazing be near the end.

Replay value does not refer to only multiplayer. Ocarina of time had great replay value. I finished it at LEAST 3 times.
- Sounds like you have too much time on your hands. I never said it only referred to multiplayer, you just assumed because I only gave one example. When you assume you make an ass of you and … well just you.

“the sound and music (same through-out the game in terms of quality)