Groupthink and Zelda

In that Wii special they did, once they brought the Wii in, Jeff was mad because they didn't bring up any ice cream. I doubt he was excited about the system or game to begin with, here he was getting the chance to play the Wii before anyone else, and all his fat ass could think about was the ice cream.

First off, Vlad said some idiotic stuff in his little piece on Zelda. A brown palette does not make a game better or worse. What does make a game worse, as mentioned in the GameSpot review (which I hope all of you have actually read/watched), is having a next gen game with no voice acting and chip music. Having to scroll through text to read dialogue just sucks. Also, the sword slashing with the 'mote probably is tacked on, and probably feels that way. I'm a huge Zelda fan, and I have no doubt I'm going to love this game, but from the facts, it sure doesn't look perfect.

The only thing worst than nintendo fanbois are ZELDA fanbois. Seriously, you cannot say anything bad about Zelda without getting skinned.

After seeing the 9.5 IGN review (and several others), ive decided to pass on my Wii preorder, which i only did for Zelda... its basically OOT with updated graphics and more story. Aside from the wimote aiming, the play mechanics are exactly the same (which were good to beging with). More dungeons, same pattern of solving.. find a spot you cant pass without object A, go find object A.. and passs. Ive done that so many time before.

Anyways, I will probably the GC version if it ever comes out, but, its not the Wii killer app for me anymore.

I think it's outrageous that Zelda fans have thrown such a hissyfit and have harrassed the reviewer. Then, they actually have the nerve to call him biased. They forget that the Jeff Gerstmaan that gave OoT a perfect score is the same Jeff Gerstmaan that gave TP an 8.8. Zelda and Nintendo fanboys (yes, it's always Nintendo fanboys that things too seriously) need to grow up. I'll be picking up my Wii on December 8th when it launches here in Ireland and I'll make up my own mind then.......

Oh bullshit.

You're complaining because of readers' fanboyish response to a review they didn't like? Just curious: does it take hours to paint on a coat of irony that thick?

The only reason these fanboys expect such a glowing review is because of reviewers' unending inconsistencies in widely varying scores and accolades for every game that comes out. Gamespot.com has an average of almost 8/10 for sports games reviewed on the GC, PS2 and Xbox. That means that during our last generation of gaming systems, the average sports game we played was just short of groundbreaking and undoubtedly a classic. And if it's not finding the nearest corporate ass to lick clean to ensure advertising revenue (i.e., if the average scores are any indication, EA is the Galileo of gaming), it's the same magazine/website giving a poor review to a game for the exact same reason they gave a high review to another game.

I'm not at all surprised by confused or angered reactions by any review these fanboys read - it's entirely understandable. Perhaps when these "journalists" awake from their lazy and cowardly malaise of stamping a seal of approval on anything that's pretty, then the public may take a more thoughtful approach to reviews.

Perhaps the 8.8 is right - I've only played the game for a little bit. But attacking the fanboys for attacking the reviewers? Lemme know when there's even a shred of integrity amongst industry-paid reviewers and then we'll talk about these rabid fanboys.

Heathen!!!! Xenu will have his way with you!

If "reviewers" could write reviews we wouldn't have these problems. Instead, what GameSpot (and Game Informer, etc.) churn out is something resembling third graders' book reports: "I didn't like Great Expectations because the words were too long. And the the book was really heavy and wasn't funny. And there were no pictures, except the one on the front cover, and that was ugly. I wanted swords and big guns, but Charles Dickens is a dick. In summary, I give Great Expectations a 3 out of 10."

Take a gander at The New York Review of Books or even Roger Ebert's movie reviews. The worst of those is never as patently inane as the best of what the "big name" videogaming publications churn out.

If you think that serious reviews can only be made of books and movies, I point you to RPGnet (and Shannon Appelcline's playtest reviews in particular) as well as to Insert Credit for decent reviews of board games and video games, respectively.

It serves little purpose to bemoan the juvenile behavior of those who read a publication targetted at juveniles.

Jeff (the reviewer who gave it an 8.8) had some good points. The music and sound is crappy, the graphics aren't up to Resident Evil 4 and Wind Waker standard, the Wiimote controls are tacked on, and the game's fights are easy. Whether these things are true or not, I will not personally know until I play the game on December 11th. Until than I'll take his word for it, because it sounds true. If anyone expected this game to score higher than Ocarina of Time, they are insane. Ocarina of Time revolutionized the Adventure genre, do you really think a sequel with "tacked on" Wiimote controls will do the same? I will buy Zelda, and I will love it, but it won't be as good as Ocarina of Time, because it just isn't that revolutionary.

I for one will seek out the harshest reviews of ZTP before buying. I was disappointed with Wind Waker. It did NOT deserve the across-the-board accolades it received. Not even close. I want to cut through the hype and read the CG and Wii TP reviews and look for who's really telling it like it is. I want to know if this is REALLY innovation or just more of the same. Link to the Past and Ocarina brought something new to the series while staying true to the essence of the series. At this point, TP looks like nothing more than a improved, but re-hashed, OoT -- with some fancy new controls.

Though I'm as susceptible to nostalgia as anyone, even the fanboys have to admit that the chip tunes and scrolling text are getting old. Zelda will never go away, but Nintendo needs to begin its "new" generation with some new first-party IPs that take us places we haven't been before.

Exeter -

It was your hamburger example that confused me. GameSpot isn't taking out ads in the newspaper smearing the burger joint. What this is like is going into the restaurant and walking down the line, asking each person what they think of the burger they're eating. The review is the same thing as one guy saying, "Well, it's decent, but I'm not all that thrilled about it because I don't like wheat buns." The Zelda fans are like if those other patrons decided to start a lynch mob and run the guy out of town for not liking their burger to the same degree as they did.

GameSpot isn't actively trying to smear Twilight Princess. They aren't taking out ads in newspapers, running a giant 8.8 across the cover (I still watch 4 star movies, even if someone else thinks it should get 5 and even buy the DVD version later) and screaming "an incredible game that comes just short of being perfect". Talk about the "negative" publicity of that. They liked it, but didn't think of it as a complete timeless classic, and it was the Wii input that caused it. I'm sure they'd probably rate the GameCube version much higher. I can wager plenty of people will find the Wiimote a hideous method of input, which means much of what Zelda is all about is being held back by that. The review is more than fair.

I don't think groupthink and confirmation bias are the problems here. Instead, this is just another example of the first law of the internet--a 90% of the people on the internet are trolls with worthless comments to make. An alternatiave and equally simple explanation is that these guys are immature young teenagers, and they're acting accordingly. No need for complex psychological theories.

If I might interject my two cents:
I think what most people are angry about isn't the score, it's the context of the score.

Games journalism has become such a joke that 8 (even 8.8) out of 10 is considered a bad score; that games are, on hype alone escalated into 9+ scores.
Listen, I own Gears of War. I like Gears of War. I think it's a fun game, but it's not a near-10 game. When I discuss classics in 10 years, I'm (probably, as I, like most people in the world, have not played it) more likely to be discussing Twilight Princess than Gears of War.

(Note: you can really pick one of any number of 9+-scored games, put it in the place of "Gears of War" in the preceding paragraph, and make the same point. Once again, have nothing against Gears of War.)

P.S. - Yes, it is entirely possible the new Zelda game is not good, but this would be contrary to Nintendo's general track record. The equation has become: "Do I trust Nintendo, whom I've known for years, or a reviewer, who could be doing this all for the notoriety?" (People aren't right to think that, but game journalists have no one to blame but themselves here).

Good Lord, was that long.

Yeah, blind fandom is killing gaming, but so are biased game reporters such as yourself, Vlad.

We get it, you hate Zelda. You constantly rip on it, call it ugly and lame, you then find one reviewer that seems to second the notion (an 8.8, oo scary) and shove it down the reader's throat.

Oh and the rip on people that haven't played it? I've played 10 hours since midnight and I can say that you are truly a hater. Hate on!

Here's something to put it in perspective, to show why people are pissed. Wind Waker, with its easy difficulty level and boring sailing, got a 9.3.
http://www.gamespot.com/gamecube/adventure/legendofzeldathewindwaker/review.html
From what I've heard, Twilight Princess is a MUCH better game. I haven't played it, but that's what I've gathered from reading reviews, blogs, etc. It just doesn't make sense that the most loved (recent) Zelda game should get a lower score than the most hated.

LaughingTarget,

I don't with Gamespot's review, or with any other negative review. In my analogy, they're the patrons who just don't like the hamburger as much as others, or as you put it, because they don't like wheat buns. Jeff Gerstmann brings up some very good points about quality issues in Twilight Princess, and such a voice should be heard. I was writing specifically about Vlad's tactics and the entirely unsurprising reaction of his readers.

On a side note, there will always be a group that reacts irrationally to such things, just like there will always be a person who argues with an officer about a ticket when he was obviously going twenty over. I wasn't concerned so much with those posts as those of intelligible substance, which I would argue outnumber the former in this thread.

The first part of my preceding post should have read "I don't take issue with Gamespot's review..." Sorry about that.

Kudos for Gamespot!!!
Well written, and well founded reasoning.

And I'm a huge Zelda fan, but I'm not blind to problems that Nintendo put into the game.

Having been a proud subscriber to Nintendo Power for the last eight years, I've come to appreciate their reviews more than those of Internet sites (and EGM, the only non-internet source I refer to besides NP). While there's the obvious bias of being a Nintendo-endorsed magazine with the seal and everything (tho OPM didn't seem to run into such problems), I've always thought they treated every game fairly. They don't give out failing scores to games unless they were extremely broken (and/or licensed crap), but they also don't give out perfect scores to great games either. I remember Ocarina of time only getting I think 9.4 or 9.6, and they just voted that as the best game in Nintendo's history. (I may be wrong, but I know it wasn't 9.9-10.)

Why I bring this up is that most game reviewers I see feel like they need to be even more critical of games than movie reviewers of their subject because of the $50 pricetag. However, NP realizes that the intangible element of fun that's present in interactive experiences like video games makes it so they can't be graded as harshly if there isn't valid cause, while also not cheapening their rating system by awarding absolute perfect to anything short of legendary.

In this particular case, I don't think the reviewer's critique of the controls was out of line (though since most reviews didn't report such a problem with it, Jeff should have emphasized it might have just been his hang-up.). However, to be attacking the game because of its graphics (which are really good *for the system they're on*), the score (which still sounds better than almost any other game, from what I've heard), and the lack of dialogue (when mute characters is a series staple and almost every console game has mangled that particular aspect anyway) is no longer judging it based on how fun it is, but as supposed art that's to be picked apart and analyzed. On this basis, Donkey Kong would have been given a 6 at best.

The fans on message boards have definately encouraged this behavior with constant flame wars, etc., but they don't bill themselves as professionals. If you're going to be part of a domain-name site that releases its opinions as editorial content to be reproduced, a little responsibility should be exercised.

And as was said before, a gaming site attacking "fanboys" is the height of poor form, as they do pay the bills to keep joystiq going. Their worst fault is perhaps caring too much about the subject of your site, and at best they write much more tactfully than you.

Okay - now that I've played the game about five hours, the review is spot on in most of its complaints.

The controls are wonky and tacked on, the graphics look fine on 480p (the best my TV can manage) but would probably disappoint on HD.

The sound really is surprisingly lacking; I like the sound in the remote, but I can see that being a love-hate issue. The puzzles are just as Jeff mentions in the review - familiar, but fun.

It's a great Gamecube game enhanced for the Wii, but it's no instant classic. It's better than an 8.8, but if you're a gamer who's played through the Zelda series, ignore the score and read the review. Jeff got it right.

But again, if someone hasn't played a previous Zelda, I don't see how the nostalgia wrinkles would bother you, and this game ends up about even with Wind Waker - a 9-9.3. It's more fun than Okami, and is some sort of multiplayer component away from being a 9.5-9.8. Can't wait to see Nintendo build a Zelda game for the Wii from the ground up.

Why are you people so surprised to see Vlad react different to EA calling Gears unoriginal, yet applauding Zelda's criticism? He worked for Microsoft, and so does GameSpot. Read the link below, and get over it.


http://us.unaffiliated.tenament.com/viewtopic.php?topic=67

Let's wait for all the reviewers on the net that have some dignity left to actually review this game.

Vlad pissing off and baiting fanboys is funny once or twice but at the rate your going, it looks very unprofessional and insulting. At times you make vaild points but it looks like you try real hard to put a zinger at the end of every post to bait fanboys. Dude you're giving joystiq a bad name. I think thats pretty fucked up that you just post shit to piss of joystiq readers...grow up.

"The only thing worst than nintendo fanbois are ZELDA fanbois. Seriously, you cannot say anything bad about Zelda without getting skinned.

After seeing the 9.5 IGN review (and several others), ive decided to pass on my Wii preorder, which i only did for Zelda... its basically OOT with updated graphics and more story. Aside from the wimote aiming, the play mechanics are exactly the same (which were good to beging with). More dungeons, same pattern of solving.. find a spot you cant pass without object A, go find object A.. and passs. Ive done that so many time before.

Anyways, I will probably the GC version if it ever comes out, but, its not the Wii killer app for me anymore."

Come on, Optimus. You're better than that.

What's important it's that it is *the* killer app for the Wii (for almost everyone), not if it is yours or not. You make some pretty good points sometimes, but don't let your slight pro-sony bias blind you.

Check out the link I just posted which shows how the Gamespot reviewer gave Gears of War a 98 despite having, in his own opinion, worse flaws than Zelda TP.

Furthermore, he gave GTA: San Andreas a "Superb 96" despite, in his own words, having "archaic gameplay".

Zelda gets judged and downgraded for not having Xbox 360 graphics, and *gasp* not having the best music ever. That's not to mention that this guy has an Xbox blog of his own.

Don't worry, most ranking sites take game ratings with a grain of salt; meaning that they standardize and take bias into account when meassuring the "true score" of a game.

I have been looking forward to zelda on the wii and have been playing games since the 8-bit nes but nintendo and its fan boys need to get with the times. Having everything text based (with no spoken audio), midi sounding music and yes the graphics (from the demo at a kiosk I played) are underwhelming. These are all things that would stop a game form gettig a 10. I mean haven't you fanboys played any games not on a nintendo system for the last 5 years? Go play oblivion or some other modern games and see how spoken dialogue and orchestrated music effects the feel of the game. "BUT zelda has never been about spoken dialogue, its tradition" right, its never been about using a remote for your sword swings. Things change grow up. an 8.8 is a great score.

If you guys think you know it all, you're smarter, you're more credible...

Why the hell are you guys reading reviews anyway?

I usually visit sites like this to read what's new? But I was curious a bit why articles about the *bright lights* ZELDA keep popping out... if I need some information about a game, I'd read it without believing anything about the reviewer's opinion... ofcourse since you guys are smarter you could distinguish facts from opinions right?

A review is an opinion of the author, though he may try to be objective about it but learning curves, (not to mention favorite colors and genres), and all are very much subjective...

Bashing either the game or vlad will get you what?
A wrinkle?

I'm disgusted at all the people that complain that their video games don't talk to them. In fact, I _HATE_ VIDEO GAMES THAT TALK TO ME. I _HATE_ the fact that you cannot name any of your characters. I read at least 10 times faster than the voice actors can talk. Voice is essentially worthless to me. Get over it. It is seriously not that big of a deal.

I can imagine one of you one day coming across a book: "Where are the pictures?! HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING? OMG MOM HOLD ME!"

"How dare you tell me your opinion!"

"I want you to tell me my opinion, without me ever telling you what my opinion is."

"And if you don't match my opinion, YOU SUCK, UR BIASED. WII-HATER! NO, the 360 controllers is a POS!"

-From, 10,000 stupid fanbois, all of whom have a different opinion

Well...you kids sure do get excited about a vidja game, don't you?

Fact: Underneath the 8.8 score on Gamespot the word "great" can easily be discerned.

great (adj.)4. wonderful; first-rate; very good: We had a great time. That's great! 6. notable; remarkable; exceptionally outstanding: a great occasion. 7. important; highly significant or consequential: the great issues in American history.
(from dictionary.com)

If you cannot or will not tolerate a plurality of views, reading reviews or critiques of any kind is utterly pointless.

The reason that I read Gamespot for video game reviews is that they are not beholden to any group or individual regarding the content of their editorial work.

I just hope most of you aren't old enough to vote. XD

...and what the heck is that picture? It's amazingly weird and disturbing.

Actually, Gerstmann is just a bad reviewer. I've thought this well before the Zelda review. You can call it fanboyism or whatever, but when every other reviewer is giving the game much higher marks than 8.8, it's certainly not chutzpah...

LOL
Jeff Gerstmann is a big hypocrite. He criticized Majora's Mask for being too different and gave it an 8.3. Now he complains Twilight Princess is too similar to the other Zeldas and gives it an 8.8.
What does a Zelda game have to do to get a 9? Have Tony Hawk instead of Link as the main character?

Besides he gave GTA: SA a 9.6 when it's basically the same game as GTA3 only bigger and more refined. Well, TP is a bigger version of OoT.

Here's what I learned from reading this thread:

-We all have biases. Even the Gamespot review guy.
-Some of the talkback posters on here are pathetic.
-An 8.8 score is a very good score. There is nothing wrong with an 8.8 score.
-The GameFAQS.com forum is full of rabid and pathetic fanboys with little else to do than flame the reviewer. (I say get a life.)
-You cannot say anything bad about Zelda without getting flamed by a fanboy. (Guess what, the CD-i titles sucked ass and you know it.)
-For a next-gen title, the game LOOKS like it was made for the Gamecube, and not for a revolutionary new system.
-Fanboys like to make unheralded threats.
-Even though the Gamespot review had valid points, individuals (who at that point hadn't even played the game yet) resorted to cheap insults.
-Just because someone posts a different score, it doesn't mean that they are intentionally trying to go against the grain.
-Gaming journalism (in general) is a joke.
-If you cannot handle criticism (in any form), you don't deserve to use the computer you're sitting at right now.