I understand, but if those games never come out anyway, there's no way to compare them to those games, right? Most games that come out are finished products, so there's no use in comparing them to unfinished products if that means that all the ''good'' games get rated between 8 and 10. Why not lower the bar and say anything above a 5 (mediocre) is ''good'', and anything below is ''bad''? Not saying the median should be a 5, but I just don't agree with the idea that a 7 is ''mediocre'', that's what a 5 should mean.
@skywake I don't believe Colour Splash should be up there with Hyrule Warriors and the likes. That was what I meant with the last comment, I hoped you'd understand that, but that wasn't the point of my comment.
I see review scores as conflating a few things - honestly I don't think score ratings are a great idea any way though.
I think they should reflect how effectively a game realises the goals of its creators for the game whilst reflecting how ambitious those goals actually are and whether they push the medium forwards.
Breath of the Wild is very ambitious and impeccably well realised. It's not perfect but it doesn't have to be - that was clearly not the objective (or possible!). There are underdeveloped areas with room for improvement (like the, mostly forgettable, side quests. I also think the control scheme isn't accessible enough - I think the jump button requires a step too much co-ordination for a lot of people) but that doesn't matter because they are not the areas that the game itself asks you to judge it by.
The exploration of the world unimpeded by artificial gates with players gently guided into certain areas by the direction of the camera and the flow of the land, finding ways to incorporate more linear "traditional Zelda" segments (like Zora's Domain) within that far more open setting and creating play mechanisms that replicate the satisfying and addictive gameplay loops of RPGs without the need to grind or for D&D style character levelling - these were clearly the main objectives of the developers. Nintendo aren't the first to set those things as targets for their games (on the contrary most major games from the past decade have had the same goals) but with BoTW Nintendo has avoided major technical issues and delivered far more satisfying systems.
That's why it got so many high scores.
It also helps that it's the kind of game that specifically appeals to the type of people who aspire to be video games journalists and end up writing reviews.
I think it is fine to question game scores and reviews, people will always disagree. No need to dismiss anyones point of view or asking the question. Nothing should be sacrosanct unless that person is being rude/hateful in their comments. I also think that reviews, as a whole are giving out higher scores than they used to.
To me a 7 is a good game, 8 is a great game, 9 an excellent game and 10 is something that is just truly amazing. I would only expect a few 9's for a system in a year. Of course, that is me going back to the old days of game reviewing in the 1990's. I can remember anything getting a 9 or 90% + was pretty much a must buy. If I did that now, I'd be broke.
As for BOTW, I very much like the game. I've played it off and on since launch and still not got that far in the game despite a lot of hours. I love taking it at a slower pace and I can see it taking me through for a good few months which is incredible value to me. Also an amazing launch title for Switch, really showing off the hardware and form factor.
That said, if I were to rate it by my metric as stated earlier, I would not have rated it as high as most reviewers. It is a 9 out of 10 imo. That is in no way a bad thing but I have a few niggles that I think could have been improved on a little. Story isn't essential but I don't think BOTW's story is as good as other open world tales. Side quests and NPC are fun but slightly repetetive. I'm not keen on the combat but I'm going to put that down to my skill level. I've played other entries in the series through to completion back in the day but I can't call myself a diehard Zelda fan so I don't have that same emotional investment as some people and reviewers.
Now I may be an idiot, but there's one thing I am not sir, and that sir, is an idiot
People that dont enjoy open world games are not enjoying an open world game?
Glad I was sitting down for that bombshell!
I think one of the points in this discussion has simply been that such people exist. Some folks do seem to treat open world as being unquestionably the best form of gaming. Every now and then we need to remember the reasons it isn't.
Edit: Oh, and I was meaning to add: it says something that a lot of people's reaction to Breath of the Wild was "hooray, Nintendo finally understands modern game design", as though they were doing something fundamentally wrong before.
How good does a game have to be to deserve 10/10? Zelda is beautiful, huge and absolutely packed with satisfying secrets, combat and puzzles. I honestly haven't enjoyed any game this much since The World Ends With You. I get that the story is a little thin (and that some people, for some reason, seem to think voice acting makes games better) but that's really just the excuse for the gameplay.
Obviously, taste is always personal, so my agreeing with reviewers isn't going to change the OP's mind. But the question remains: how good must anything be to deserve 10/10? Pretty much every single game ever made has some technical flaws, and some of the best games in history have little to no story. Does everything get knocked down to a 9, just to leave room for the perfect, non-existent game?
Game scores are subjective. Just look at the '9' rating that Other M got on this site. A game that single-handedly destroyed the Metroid franchise and pissed off a ton of fans doesn't deserve such a high rating.
Personally, I don't rate games. I either like them or I don't.
@skywake Why are you assuming I think every game below 57 deserves to be a 1/10? Let's put it this way, I just think that high scores (9s and 10s) are handed out a bit too much these days. At least, from my perspective. It's as if people really a game, therefore it should be a 10. It's okay to like a game and not give it a 10. Anyway, I digress, I think I've said all I wanted to say and I don't necessarily want us to go back and forth over small little details!
Ratings are only relevant to the person giving the rating , to reason to be triggered if you don't agree or give a game a different score 1 score higher or lower than the source your reading gave it.
@Rudy_Manchego A lot of that comes down to how you base your score system though. IMO the big enemy here is Metacritic/Rotten Tomatoes. Every critic/outlet has their own system, most have a page that defines how their rating system works, and what they use to arrive at a score. What you described is a system where perfect starts at 100%, and you deduct points there for flaws you find in the game. In such a system, a 100% score is a theoretical impossibility. There is no such thing as a flawless game, and therefore every game will have some percentage of flaws such as the ones you listed that would demand points deducted. That outlet would effectively not be able to deliver a "perfect" score for any case. Which is fine, if they describe that's how their rating works.
Other outlets use the scores as a relative scale. 100% being an "as perfect as a game/art can get relative to its stated goals, target audience, and not missing any of its major tentpoles." Such an outlet can give out many 100%'s when games demonstrate a solid quality, thought process, and a clean delivery of its stated goals and intents without muddying its own waters, along with successfully reaching its target audience.
Using Yooka-Laylee as an example, that is a flawed game for a number of reasons. The former methodolgy would yield a "low" score, because that perfect 100% starting point would be brought down by a multitude of deductions. Meanwhile the second system would rate it very highly, because what its stated goal is is to be a classic collect-a-thon platformer including the now "outdated" tropes of that genre, for people who like that genre. Objective flaws in the game from a modern perspective couldn't bring down the score under that lens, because the lens would be set to evaluate if it's meeting the goals it intended. Modernization would actually be more likely to bring down the score under that microscope.
And this is all fine and good and all methods are valid provided the review methodology is explained. Where this breaks down:
-The average internet reader is an impatient complete moron with a primitive primate brain. They do not read the review methodology, they do not understand the nature of review methodology, they scroll to the bottom of the last page without reading the descriptive text and view the numeric score. They apply in their own head their own expected review methodology and determine that score lines up with their expected evaluation.
-Metacritic. The site that simply reports the median average of all the numeric review scores grouped together regardless of their rating system. The review that rates Yooka based on a policy of deducting flaws based on modern logic from 100 and gives it a 50% gets averaged with the site that rates it based on a relative estimate of how it accomplishes its goals and the reception it should receive for the intended audience and gives it a 90% and displays a single "70%" that the public, and the financiers take as a scientific distillation of the quality/performance of the product. Hollywood is as miffed about Rotten Tomatoes as we should all be about Metacritic. They make money generating numbers to tell everyone the "group consensus meter" of a subjective work of art, and it negates the care and attention put into the text of evaluating these games by every critic, forcing the industry to focus mostly on the numeric output to please Metacritic, than actually reviewing games.
You might evaluate BotW a 9 based on some deductions for flaws. I might give it a 10 because my evaluation shows that it's as close to perfection (for its stated intent) as we'll possibly see in our lifetime. We might both want to convey our thoughts to the reader as to what influenced that score. Meanwhile they log into Metacritic, see both our names and see that all together it's a 92 "oh well, I heard it was amazing, I guess not..."
@Haru17 Fans of the original Zelda, on the other hand, are thrilled that after 30 years we FINALLY got the 3D version of Zelda that we always believed the FIRST 3D version of Zelda should have been That has to factor into some scoring too. The people complaining about it being "not Zelda like" seem to think Zelda started with either OoT or ALttP. OG Zelda fans have been in an abyss of "not really like a Zelda game" from 1997-2016! This is the first "Real" Zelda game since '85!
Though I don't disagree with the obsession in the gaming industry with story-less open world absolute player freedom situations, though I don't have that criticism against the gaming community with games like BotW, Assassin's Creed, etc that straddle the middle ground. Fallout and GTA for now embody everything that is wrong with that philosophy where for the most part there aren't actually even game systems, it's all about "run around and do stuff". BotW may allow absolute player freedom but it's still constrained within an orderly game system until you've maxed everything you can max, then it can become a "do stuff" game for those so inclined.
@NEStalgia You do make an excellent point about Meta Critic and Rotten Tomatoes. As a whole, I dislike the oversimplifcation of a game into a number. I personally don't base my purchasing decisions on a score, I like to read reviews to give me that idea of the games strengths or weaknesses and how they fit into my personal tastes. I have really enjoyed plenty of games that scored lower but appealed to me directly because the review highlighted elements I liked or issues I was happy to ignore.
The easy gratification of scores and numbers, particularly aggregated, is ridiculous in gating the quality of a game (or any product). I remember the reviewer who marked down BOTW and it went down like a percent or two and fans went mad and sent death threats, as if a drop on a percentage meant anything! The game is still great, some people will have different views but such is life. Each site does rate differently making it almost pointless as an indication of quality yet, the internet and its users constantly use that as if it were a scientifically infallible option.
In terms of my personal rating scale, I prefer percent to out of 10 because there is a difference between 90 and 100. I don't totally agree that 100% means perfection in my scale - you rightly say that games cannot be 100% because there will always be flaws and that is true but a 10 or 100% should be, to me should represent a bolt out of blue classic. Something that is the pinnacle of gaming in its medium at the point at which it was released. Not that I am elitist or anything
I personally don't feel that BOTW is truly groundbreaking or one of the best games of all time (from my rating system) and I mean that without disparaging the game, it is still great. It is a groundbreaking Nintendo/Zelda game .
Your point about Yooka Laylee is fair, but any reviewer worth their salt should mention why it exists in the first place but it doesn't make it a great game. If a game sets out to accurately replicate the sensation of having piles and acheives it, does it make it a great game?
Finally, thanks for the detailed (calm) response. Was fun to read and respond.
Now I may be an idiot, but there's one thing I am not sir, and that sir, is an idiot
Why Do People Like Things That I Don't Like: The Thread.
For me, Breath of the Wild is everything I've ever wanted in a 3D Zelda. It takes the practically limitless potential for exploration and adventure that the original game promised but could never deliver and made good on it. I feel like I'm on an actual heroic adventure, as opposed to just stumbling around looking for the next location that forwards The Plot, like most post-LttP Zelda games.
Is it a perfect game? No. There are aspects of it that could be improved. But it is, more than almost any other video game I've ever played, consistently engaging, and inspired a sense of youthful wanderlust.
For me, it's the evolution I've wanted to see in both Zelda games and open-world games, more broadly.
Breath of the Wild isn't a perfect game--no game is (except perhaps Chrono Trigger). However, it certainly deserves the high scores it has received. The highlight of the Zelda series has always been exploration and the thrill of discovery, which Breath of the Wild captures perfectly. In addition, the shrines are home to some of the best puzzles in Zelda history.
There are some things I don't like though, specifically,
While I'm not against a durability system in general, the durability of all the weapons in the game is pretty pitiful
Lack of enemy variety (where are the Darknuts???)
Lack of Large Dungeons
Repetitive nature and themes of 4 of the game's 5 core dungeons.
But this does not take the game out of "legendary" in my book
Forums
Topic: Please explain me why Breath of the Wild got so many high scores
Posts 41 to 60 of 257
Sorry, this topic has been locked.