| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (48)

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 1:09PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
8.8? that seems a bit high for Twilight Princess.

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 2:51PM bobloblaw said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Not really, considering it has a 95 average on Metacritic.
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 1:10PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
8.8 TP, yeah right. Best zelda game to date and they gave it an 8.8...

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 1:58PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Im still playing through it (TP) casually,
and I can barely remember the plot line.

Ocarina on the other hand had me hooked like an addict for several months and I can remember parts of the game as clear as yesterday.
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 2:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
no way.all the new zeldas copy OOT`s formula which is the best zelda.
TP is just rehashing the formula.OOT>all zeldas to date.
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 2:07PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Twilight Princess is not the best Zelda game to date. The original is still the best, with Ocarina of Time being the best in 3D, with Wind Waker getting high marks for originality and art design.

Twilight Princess was great, but much of it felt recycled on outdated, the new ideas didn't make enough of a difference to really change the game, and the game was a flat-out step down from Wind Waker in presentation.
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 2:12PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
best? link to the past
second best, AKA 'would be best if it wasnt for that damn triforce hunt'? wind waker
third: oot
fourth: zelda II
fifth: 1, majoras mask, twilight princess, and all the handlelds are tied for fifth (although still all incredibly awesome. almost the best series of games ever (second only to the Suikoden series)
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 2:17PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Jody

You think Wind Waker is better than Ocarina of Time? What the hell?

On a side note, I still haven't play Link to the Past, I think there may be something wrong with me...
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 2:21PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
eh, my 'top ___' lists change day to day. it just depends on my frame of mind at the time.

but I put wind waker over ocarina just because of that damn water temple. I hate you water temple! I got ocarina on the virtual console the day it came out, got to the water temple, and I've been sitting there ever since.
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 2:21PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
oh, plus because wind waker is my favorite looking game ever. so beautiful!
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 2:29PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The Wind Waker does look awesome, I'll give you that, but Ocarina of Time had the best temples (the Water Temple was the worst, but even that had the fight with Dark Link, so it is forgiven.)
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 2:43PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
that is true. the first time fighting dark link was awesome
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 4:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well maybe replaying an recycled game is good considering I haven't played wind waker for ages so playing a new version (TP) is good IMO.

the amount of messages in my email box...
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 1:13PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Above, we see the lulz generated by an 8.8 score

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 1:57PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
And I stick to metacritic. Aggregate scores are more telling that GameSpot or IGN or whatever. And most of all: Rent them. Just rent the game. Play it yourself.
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 1:16PM DVersion said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
X-play has the right idea with the 5 point rating system. Gives you a clear idea whether or not the game with worth playing and none of the decimal crap either.
1- basically unplayable, no reedeming qualities
2- the game might work for some but the game usually has some gameplay problems. It's just plainly not worth your money.
3- nothing special. Not a terrible game but does not do anything innovative to keep anyone's attention.
4- Good game but has some flaws that keep it from being a great game.
5- A definate buy. go grab it right now you won't be dissapointed.

Oh and twilight princess should have gotten a solid 8.

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 2:05PM WhatIsThatThing said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Personally, I can't stand 5-point rating systems. A 4 out of 5 translates into an 8 out of 10. That sounds considerably worse, doesn't it? Ten point rating systems are where it should be.
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 5:27PM DVersion said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't even understand you're logic to that? how does it sound worse? it's the exact same ratio, what does it matter what it sounds like?
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 1:20PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've played plenty of gems over the years by ignoring the number at the end of a review and actually reading what the reviewer writes.

One persons garbage is another's treasure and all that...

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 1:23PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
I think they have some nintendo fan boys over there.

pc gms < sk

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 1:23PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So far I really enjoy Twilight princess. People keep assuming that Twilight princess is a wii game, it is NOT, it's a gamecube game, the wii version is a gamecube port with no graphical upgrades. This is a fact and has been confirmed by Nintendo themselves. All they did was modify the controls. For the gamecube, twilight princess probably has the best graphics on that system.

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 1:28PM copa said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
The shocking secret is I don't actually have the time to read every single review that gets posted from beginning to end.

If I see that Mass Effect got a 9.6, or Track and Field got a 5.2, I'm not going to go through the review. I was already planning on buying the former, and not buying the latter, and I don't really want the additional information.

If Assassin's Creed gets an 8.5, I'll read the review. I'm on the fence about this title, and I will read through the pros and cons in detail to decide if this title is right for me.

Similarly, if Rock Band gets a 3.5, or Tony Hawk's Proving Ground gets a 9.4, I'm going to read the review. These scores show that the reviewer's overall impressions differ sharply from what I expected, and I will read the review to educate myself more about the game.

So, reviewers who feel that all of their work is fine literature probably don't like the scores. But gamers with busy schedules find them helpful.

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 1:58PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Exactly. The written review and the scores serve slightly different purposes depending on the game and your preconceived opinion of it.

Likewise, the intention of the review may be unclear if there isn't a score attached. Sometimes (especially for top-notch games) the reviewer will focus on every little problem, which may seem like a bad thing, but really they're just being more detailed with their review because the game is so good. But if you didn't have a 9.5 score to represent that, it may seem like they didn't like it.

By the way, an 8.8 was exactly what Twilight Princess deserved. It just looked bad because they gave Warioware a 9.1, which was completely fucked up.
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 1:33PM Shagittarius said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree reviews should be thumbs up thumbs down. Or I like the other suggestion of a couple descriptive bold words at the end or within the review.

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 1:33PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I am pretty sure Something Awful came up with the whole "one sentence review" thing quite some time ago. Many are hysterical, mostly all true.

I just use Metacritic nowadays. Also I would give TP about a 9.1. To be better it really needed to stop making a big deal every time I get a 5pt ruppee. I DONT CARE, ESPECIALLY WHEN MY WALLET IS FULL.

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 2:17PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
it only made a big deal when it was your first time picking one up in that play session, but I agree that was annoying as hell. Look, I'm 30 hours into the game, I know how many rupees the blue ones are worth by now!
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 2:26PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is something I think is really holding back the newer (read: 3D) Zelda games, it takes too long to do very simple things.

It's not just about picking up rupees, but also how long it takes to open doors, climb ladders, recover when you accidentally roll into a wall, etc.

All of these very short but annoying pauses in gameplay were all acceptable in the N64 days when people didn't expect better, but it's really making Zelda games look bad today.

That, and lack of voice.
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 1:35PM Neebs said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Thanks for pointing me towards Games for Lunch. Seems a good read.

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 1:37PM Fernando Rocker said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I base my games purchases on reviews, but, sometimes, I think its a wrong decision...

I mean, for example, Mario Kart Double Cash gest a 7.5 on IGN (generally, I just buy 8 and above games). But Mario Kart... damn, its so much fun, and I mean, a lot of fun to play in multiplayer mode with a bucn of friends.

And for example, I bougth Shadow of the Colossus, a 9 and above game, or GTA San Andreas, or some other 9 and above games, and this are games that I will never play for over 20 minutes, really.

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 2:01PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
You won't play Shadow of the Colossus for more than 20 minutes?

*Smacks Fernando Rocker upside the head*
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 2:03PM Fernando Rocker said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Its because I hate the framerate of the game... If the game was on another more powerful console (Gamecube or Xbox) it will be better.

Unfortunely, the PS2 couldnt handle that graphics very well.
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 2:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i second that...i cant play that game for less than like an hour at a time...its so addicting...fernando u dissapoint me
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 2:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hmm... I haven't noticed a problem on mine, though I admit that I'm less caring than many people when it comes to framerates.
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 2:58PM einhanderkiller said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm a frame rate whore (I mainly play PC games) but only experienced a handful of frame rate drops in SoTC, of which were not annoying in any way. I was playing on a newer model PS2, though. Could that be why?
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 3:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I played SotC on a slimline PS2 and framerate was an issue whenever I rode around open field. Still an amazing game however.
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 1:57PM Odog4ever said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I prefer at "Buy, Rent, or Pass" rating system to at "Thumbs up or thumbs down" on. Arbitray numerical rating systems are stupid in my opinion.

People that want more info will read a whole review anyway and those who don't, won't. It's that simple.

I never read reviews for game I was never interested in, in the first place. No matter how high they scored.

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 2:00PM Ignatius said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I got banned from GameSpot during that whole 8.8 fiasco. I called Jeff Gerstmann a moron and they permabanned me. Smite me, oh mighty smiter!

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 2:14PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would've given it a better score on the Gamecube than on the Wii, because I got tired of it rather quickly on the Wii.

This Zelda was obviously designed to be a regular console title and pretty much opened the way to PS2 ports, which all sucked.
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 2:09PM Mr Khan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Personally, i'd prefer a kind of "The Good, the Bad, and the WTF" kind of system, which lays out its good qualities, its flaws, and anything particularly strange or unique (be it good or bad)

Thumbs-up/Thumbs-down is simply too absolute for my tastes, and the number based system is incredibly deceptive, as it lacks the "fun-factor" complex

The buy, rent, pass system is also acceptable

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 2:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I get 880,000 to the 1,000,000 and thats the ways I like it!

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 2:36PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Surely it would be easier if developers stopped making games capable of scoring 6 and below on a 'out of 10' system?

And Virtual Console/ PSN/ XBLA re-releases shouldn't need a review, just a "yeah" or "nope" directed at original fans. I'm 19 going on 20, and I've no interest in a single old Arcade game like Root Beer Tapper or Paper Boy because they're before my time - and there's still an age group below mine as it is.

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 3:16PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
if you have not felt the pain of getting hit by a tornado immediately after getting hit earlier by the grim reaper, and then later being chased by a crazed woman with a rolling pin, you havent lived
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 3:25PM mr nimblewick said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Have you ever played those games?

You should at least once before you die.
Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2007 2:02PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yes I play all the XBLA Demos when they come out, and not had fun with a single one of them - seriously. I think that a large part of the fun you guys may have (assuming you played the originals) is from the fact you're playing it again and enjoyed it the first time around, whereas I've never played it, go back to it, and just don't enjoy it. It's exactly the same with me and people younger than me going back to play something like Sonic The Hedgehog (Genesis/Megadrive version), I love it to bits because it's one of the first games I played, but alot of people I know who are younger or started playing games later than that just thing "what's the big deal".
Reply

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 2:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
I remeber the day that GS gave 8.8 to Zelda TP,sheep were so pissed hahahaha.It was a great month Gears of war was AAA and Resistance like Zelda TP flopped.

You got to love SW forums.

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 4:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Once I saw that image of the GameSpot score, I knew that the comments would be about that game and not actually on topic. What a way not to surprise me!

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 4:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What about the reviews that are pretty much paid for? Game Informer, GamePro, and even every deluded nerd's dream mag Famicon are just a few of the places where publishers pretty much pay for favorable reviews. Everyone in the industry knows it but they just don't talk about it much. EGM has danced around the issue from time to time but I don't think they ever called anyone out about it. Pretty much every company has been guilty of this at one point.

Posted: Aug 10th 2007 11:14PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Okai.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW