Breath of the Wild reviews and the question

[CritialGaming]

So the embargo for Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild is up and the reviews are pouring out. Predictably they are damn near perfect 10's across the board. Metacritic has an average score of 98 from 56 critics. Which makes me kind of curious.

You see many games get great scores, some games get fantastic scores. But there is usually always a handful of reviews that just don't rate the game that high for whatever reason. For a moment let's assume those reviews aren't talking shit on a great game for clicks.

Zelda games have always seemed to have a universally rabid fanbase, where every Zelda game just gets heaps of praise. It seems like a series that can do no wrong. (except Zelda 2) So looking at these scores for BotW, I just can't help but feel like it's more of the same. Zelda games seem to always follow an almost Pokemon-esque formula, and while the pokemon games are for the most part always good because of it. Something about the adventure game aspect of Zelda keeps me wondering. Maybe I just don't get it. But a part of me can't help but wonder if the massive Zelda drought, has made people so eager for a new game, that there was nothing the BotW could do wrong to get it marked with criticism.

At the end of the day, I'm sure Zelda fans will love the new game. But I've seen nothing about this game that would appeal to people who might have never played a Zelda game before, or only played a couple.

I dunno, maybe I just think it's fishy to see a game get such blanketing praise, without any really negatives that I can find. I mean the games that I would rate very high in the 9-10 range still have things wrong with them, and yet I don't see any of that with Zelda, and it makes the reviews feel less genuine to me. The few reviews I did find with criticisms almost kind of shrugged them off with no real mention on how they affected gameplay.

Of course it is entirely possible that Zelda is simply perfect. Though something about that seems a little fishy.

 

[Rangaman]

Zelda games always get high review scores. Even the much-derided Skyward Sword has a Metacritic of about 96. It isn't because of any drought, the last proper Zelda game only came out a few years ago (2013) and we've had a decent chuck of remasters in that time, as well as Tri Force heroes.

As for why people give them high scores, the best way of describing it (that I've heard) is that just has a certain "feel" that not a lot of game have. It's one of those things you can't really explain without having someone sit down and play it.

That and Nintendo advertise like fucking crazy.

 

[meiam]

Well they also got a shiny new console for free and before everyone to review the game, so... ya know...

Honestly I'd expect the new Zelda game to be a damn good game, but every Zelda game get near perfect score even when they don't really deserve them and have some real issue (skyward sword and twilight princess). Nostalgia is a very strong force and there's few game that can muster as strong a nostalgia vibe as Zelda.

At the same time this game has been brewing for quite a long time so they had time to fix lots of problems, so it wouldn't be a surprised if this was the best Zelda game ever.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Well remember if you don't praise Nintendo and Zelda until your throat is raw, then the fanboayz of the Outer Void will come to you in the night, slowly peel the skin off your genitals with a rusty sprok and then force you to play through the entire Call of Duty: Black Ops story, on Ultra Hard, with only your bleeding genitals. And if you die, you get a glass needle shoved under a fingernail.

So its no real surprise it gets Perfect 10/10. I mean who the hell even has a spork these days?!

 

[McMarbles]

Scores are rigged, believe me! Believe me, it's rigged, believe me! #fakereviews

 

[CaitSeith]

I'm trying to find the point here. Wind Waker was heavily criticized when it was first released on the Gamecube (cartoon visuals, boring sailing, too much empty space); Skyward Sword wasn't all praise either (slow start, too linear, revisiting completed areas, forced motion controls). Just the fact that it got rid of motion controls to swing the sword guarantees a positive reception. I'd say that the reviews makes the new Zelda worth of keeping an eye on.

 

[CritialGaming]

Nintendo's trifecta IPs (Mario, Metroid, Zelda) seem to largely adhere to the Pixar principle as far as being immune to common criticisms. No matter how derivative, formulaic and in some ways shallow (specifically almost everything outside of general game design, but occasionally even that too) a work might be, a great deal is brushed aside because it's just got that "special something"; even when half the time people couldn't even identify what exactly that something is.

Chalk it up to a peculiar little proclivity of human nature.

 

[Pseudonym]

No matter how derivative, formulaic and in some ways shallow (specifically almost everything outside of general game design, but occasionally even that too) a work might be, a great deal is brushed aside because it's just got that "special something"; even when half the time people couldn't even identify what exactly that something is.

Especially when we can't identify what that something is. If it were easily identified anyone could make it and where is the art in that?

 

[Nature Guardian]

So the embargo for Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild is up and the reviews are pouring out. Predictably they are damn near perfect 10's across the board. Metacritic has an average score of 98 from 56 critics. Which makes me kind of curious.

You see many games get great scores, some games get fantastic scores. But there is usually always a handful of reviews that just don't rate the game that high for whatever reason. For a moment let's assume those reviews aren't talking shit on a great game for clicks.

Zelda games have always seemed to have a universally rabid fanbase, where every Zelda game just gets heaps of praise. It seems like a series that can do no wrong. (except Zelda 2) So looking at these scores for BotW, I just can't help but feel like it's more of the same. Zelda games seem to always follow an almost Pokemon-esque formula, and while the pokemon games are for the most part always good because of it. Something about the adventure game aspect of Zelda keeps me wondering. Maybe I just don't get it. But a part of me can't help but wonder if the massive Zelda drought, has made people so eager for a new game, that there was nothing the BotW could do wrong to get it marked with criticism.

At the end of the day, I'm sure Zelda fans will love the new game. But I've seen nothing about this game that would appeal to people who might have never played a Zelda game before, or only played a couple.

I dunno, maybe I just think it's fishy to see a game get such blanketing praise, without any really negatives that I can find. I mean the games that I would rate very high in the 9-10 range still have things wrong with them, and yet I don't see any of that with Zelda, and it makes the reviews feel less genuine to me. The few reviews I did find with criticisms almost kind of shrugged them off with no real mention on how they affected gameplay.

Of course it is entirely possible that Zelda is simply perfect. Though something about that seems a little fishy.

Replace "Zelda game" with any other big name series and it's the same. Fallout 4. GTA5....


I've stopped caring about reviews a long time ago.

Many times, brand name and sense of tribal belonging (fanbase) make people buy games much more than the quality of the game itself.

 

[CritialGaming]

Replace "Zelda game" with any other big name series and it's the same. Fallout 4. GTA5....


I've stopped caring about reviews a long time ago.

Many times, brand name and sense of tribal belonging (fanbase) make people buy games much more than the quality of the game itself.

Yeah the but difference there is the the reviews are all of those games addressed issues the game had, despite a favorable score. Fallout 4 was docked points for it's shitty conversation wheel, GTA V, was docked for things I can't really remember. Witcher 3 was even docked for some of it's control issues and convoluted crafting systems.

I'm not saying that the game doesn't deserve these high marks, I'm sure it's gonna be a really good game. But I can't help but feel like Zelda just get these scores slapped onto them because it's Zelda like it can do no wrong. I have friends that love Zelda games, and when I ask them why they just tell me, "because it's good" but they can't ever tell me why.

It surely isn't story. Zelda games have always had a childish, passable story at best.
It surely isn't combat, there is nothing much to the combat nor really the development of special skills, abilities, magics, etc.
It surely isn't the puzzles, use X item in X spot to solve X puzzle. Though this latest game seems to address that supposedly.
It might be the exploration. From what i've heard, finding secrets and exploring areas are the driving force of these games.

Maybe it is the exploration. Many people I know who love Zelda also love walking simulator games, and survival games where the main aspects revolve around exploring.

Could that be it? If so, what makes it soooooo good that everything else is ignored?

 

[spartandude]

I really can't watch the major reviews anymore. Mass Effect 3 destroyed 99.99% of confidence I had with them and then Fallout 4 just wiped they last little bit.

 

[McMarbles]

Fake review outlets praising the failing Nintendo. Sad!

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I dunno, maybe I just think it's fishy to see a game get such blanketing praise, without any really negatives that I can find.

Game reviewers doing "objective" reviews for whatever reason has been going on for awhile with making "professional" reviews basically useless to the consumer. Not only are reviews highly overrated, they are basically the same in score from site to site. I remember when EGM magazine's 3 reviewer format provided much more review variance than 50+ Metacritic reviews do now. Movie reviewers are allowed to hate on popular movies and even dislike "Oscar" movies. Siskel & Ebert would sometimes give complete opposite reviews of a single movie. And gamers themselves are just as responsible when a big game comes out with a couple reviews scoring it under an 8/10, and then saying the reviews are just click-bait and the game is at least an 8.5 when they haven't even played it. There's plenty of highly acclaimed AAA releases that I'd rate a 5/10 or lower, yet not a single "professional" review does that.

There was a thread on the Escapist where a user did some pretty good research into game scoring showing that all other mediums have much lower averages than video games:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.872132-In-defense-of-the-number-a-note-on-video-game-review-scores

Wind Waker was heavily criticized when it was first released on the Gamecube (cartoon visuals, boring sailing, too much empty space); Skyward Sword wasn't all praise either (slow start, too linear, revisiting completed areas, forced motion controls).

A work of art AVERAGING a score of 96 and then 93 from professional critics is not what I would call heavy criticism. Find a film, music album, book, etc with that high of a score. The original, beloved Ghostbusters has more negative reviews (w/ less total reviews too) than Final Fantasy XIII, just think about that.

Nintendo's trifecta IPs (Mario, Metroid, Zelda) seem to largely adhere to the Pixar principle as far as being immune to common criticisms. No matter how derivative, formulaic and in some ways shallow (specifically almost everything outside of general game design, but occasionally even that too) a work might be, a great deal is brushed aside because it's just got that "special something"; even when half the time people couldn't even identify what exactly that something is.

Even Toy Story 3 has an average rating of 8.9 (RottenTomatoes), not something like a 98/100. Zootopia (not Pixar) has an average score of 8.1. If a AAA game reviewed with an averaged 8.1, it would be considered shit by the gamer community before it even released.

Replace "Zelda game" with any other big name series and it's the same. Fallout 4. GTA5....


I've stopped caring about reviews a long time ago.

When was the last time ANY AAA game scored under an 80 on Metacritic?

It surely isn't story. Zelda games have always had a childish, passable story at best.

Writing is something that should be heavily criticized in every game. Writing is also very subjective so you should have games reviewing with more score variance just based on that alone (look up the Escapist review of GTAV). I just adore the Dishonoreds, I love how the games are designed in such an open-ended way allowing player creativity to run wild with the games' systems (just watch any creative kill video on Youtube). However, how can I (or anyone) give the Dishonoreds scores in the 9-10 range ever? The writing at its highest point is maybe just good, and I'm probably being generous by saying that. Games should be rated on how potentially good a game could be with 9-10s basically reaching that level. I can imagine a Dishonored with the writing quality of my favorite movies or TV shows and the games don't have writing near that level so Dishonored could be quite a bit better potentially than what we've seen so far. If or when a Dishonored does come out with that quality of writing, how could a reviewer with his/her score possibly convey that jump in quality when they gave past Dishonoreds a 9/10 already?

 

[CritialGaming]

I really can't watch the major reviews anymore. Mass Effect 3 destroyed 99.99% of confidence I had with them and then Fallout 4 just wiped they last little bit.

Here's the problem with how most reviews are handled by people and by review outlets. I don't believe that you should read a review and know if you will like the story of a game, because things like that are really subjective and vary from person to person. A review should only provide enough information regarding story to give the reader a "concept" of what the game is about, with possible remarks on whether the story was interesting to the reviewer through the end.

Really a review should:
1. Talk about the basic gameplay, how it looks, controls, and if it is a fun gameplay loop.
2. Talk about mechanics and systems in the game, things like rpg skill trees, leveling systems, crafting systems, etc. Review these mechanics based on how easy they are to use, satisfying to use, and whether they add anything to the experience.
3. Then the review should talk about whether the review found the game fun, was it interesting, how did it progress, etc. Here one would talk about problems with controls, frame rates, glitches, issues or criticisms of mechanics and such.

This set up gives the reader an answer to a simple question. "Is the game good?"

Something like Mass Effect 3 for example. ME3 is a very very good game. MEchanically it is strong, fun, and interesting throughout. However the story is shunned by most people and thus they dock way too many score points off their opinion of the game. Which signals a very unspoken thing about the games industry. You game can be 99% perfect and awesome, but that 1% will trigger people. That 1% could ruin your game for a lot of people because of the way we view games.

You could have 89 hours of awesome fun in a 90 hour game, but if you hate that final hour, ultimately you will hate the game. It's an interesting dynamic.

 

[Athennesi]

Replace "Zelda game" with any other big name series and it's the same. Fallout 4. GTA5....


I've stopped caring about reviews a long time ago.

Many times, brand name and sense of tribal belonging (fanbase) make people buy games much more than the quality of the game itself.

Yeah the but difference there is the the reviews are all of those games addressed issues the game had, despite a favorable score. Fallout 4 was docked points for it's shitty conversation wheel, GTA V, was docked for things I can't really remember. Witcher 3 was even docked for some of it's control issues and convoluted crafting systems.

I'm not saying that the game doesn't deserve these high marks, I'm sure it's gonna be a really good game. But I can't help but feel like Zelda just get these scores slapped onto them because it's Zelda like it can do no wrong. I have friends that love Zelda games, and when I ask them why they just tell me, "because it's good" but they can't ever tell me why.

It surely isn't story. Zelda games have always had a childish, passable story at best.
It surely isn't combat, there is nothing much to the combat nor really the development of special skills, abilities, magics, etc.
It surely isn't the puzzles, use X item in X spot to solve X puzzle. Though this latest game seems to address that supposedly.
It might be the exploration. From what i've heard, finding secrets and exploring areas are the driving force of these games.

Maybe it is the exploration. Many people I know who love Zelda also love walking simulator games, and survival games where the main aspects revolve around exploring.

Could that be it? If so, what makes it soooooo good that everything else is ignored?

Same here, never understood what is about this series... everything it does is done better elsewhere, even GTA or other AAA receive more restrained scores.

 

[Las7]

The game might just be that good, I don't buy the whole idea that reviewers aren't being objective - most of them played Horizon Zero Dawn a week ago. Horizon reviewed extremely well, yet most seem to score Zelda above ZDH despite the weaker hardware and the Wii U graphics. If there were real issues with the game we would have seen at least a few reviewers give the game a lower score. The delays for Zelda in the end - ended up very positive for Nintendo. It's undoubtedly going to be one of the best handheld game to be released - so that should ensure that 3DS owners actually have a reason to upgrade.

 

[CritialGaming]

I dunno, maybe I just think it's fishy to see a game get such blanketing praise, without any really negatives that I can find.

Game reviewers doing "objective" reviews for whatever reason has been going on for awhile with making "professional" reviews basically useless to the consumer. Not only are reviews highly overrated, they are basically the same in score from site to site. I remember when EGM magazine's 3 reviewer format provided much more review variance than 50+ Metacritic reviews do now. Movie reviewers are allowed to hate on popular movies and even dislike "Oscar" movies. Siskel & Ebert would sometimes give complete opposite reviews of a single movie. And gamers themselves are just as responsible when a big game comes out with a couple reviews scoring it under an 8/10, and then saying the reviews are just click-bait and the game is at least an 8.5 when they haven't even played it. There's plenty of highly acclaimed AAA releases that I'd rate a 5/10 or lower, yet not a single "professional" review does that.

All the more reason why I find it funny how no review levels any real criticism at the game. Even technical issues are brushed off.

So I read 4 reviews from major outlets, Polygon, Destructoid, Ign, and Gamespot. They all do a fairly good job of explaining the systems of the game, the flow of exploration and gameplay. But they gloss over the biggest changes in the series from what I can tell base on my knowledge of passed games. They merely state the mechanical changes but provide zero feedback on those changes like it doesn't matter. Then they go on to talk about issues with the controls, and frame rates in areas of the game. Then proceed to give it 10/10.

Fine. I can understand that they liked the game. But they didn't review it here, they merely described the game. Nowhere do they offer any real feedback on systems or how the changes to the Zelda formula might feel to long time fans. There just doesn't feel like there is anything to go off of.

The Destructoid review is probably the best of the 4 I mentioned because the writer does address the mechanic changes and why they liked how those changes ended up working. But at the same time, he mentions bosses yet doesn't give any opinion on how the bosses played out. Some of the reviewers even have those little bio things that explain what was done with the game and a few mention SUPER BOSSES! Yet the review does say shit about Super Bosses. I love Super Bosses, how come they aren't mentioned in the review? Are they good? Or are they just powered up reskins of other enemies, or cheesefests? I don't know because the reviewer didn't mention them.

 

[CritialGaming]

The game might just be that good, I don't buy the whole idea that reviewers aren't being objective - most of them played Horizon Zero Dawn a week ago. Horizon reviewed extremely well, yet most seem to score Zelda above ZDH despite the weaker hardware and the Wii U graphics. If there were real issues with the game we would have seen at least a few reviewers give the game a lower score. The delays for Zelda in the end - ended up very positive for Nintendo. It's undoubtedly going to be one of the best handheld game to be released - so that should ensure that 3DS owners actually have a reason to upgrade.

Here's the thing. I'm fine with the game being that damn good.

But even Horizon got criticisms in the reviews. As good as everyone said the game was, they did go on to explain issues with the game.

Zelda reviews read like a Nintendo wank-fest. And look if you criticize a game and still give it a 10/10, that's fine. But I read reviews for feedback on a given title. I wanna know what works, what doesn't quite fit, all that stuff. And every game has it, every game has opening for feedback, including this one. Yet the reviewers don't bother to mention it.

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

Other mediums have way more options (in variety and quantity) than just pop culture. Videogames are mostly pop culture, and that's the measure stick they are stuck with.

When was the last time ANY AAA game scored under an 80 on Metacritic?

Last year. http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/call-of-duty-infinite-warfare

 

[CaitSeith]

Well remember if you don't praise Nintendo and Zelda until your throat is raw, then the fanboayz of the Outer Void will come to you in the night, slowly peel the skin off your genitals with a rusty sprok and then force you to play through the entire Call of Duty: Black Ops story, on Ultra Hard, with only your bleeding genitals. And if you die, you get a glass needle shoved under a fingernail.

So its no real surprise it gets Perfect 10/10. I mean who the hell even has a spork these days?!

Replace Nintendo and Zelda with Sony and Uncharted, you get a more accurate depiction of reality.