Zero Punctuation: The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT | |
But that might actually be a good thing, because it means we don't have to listen to horrible actors butcher the delivery of the lines as they always do. In any case, I don't have a Wii, so I can't play this one, but it doesn't feel like I've missed anything. Personally, my favorite remains A Link to the Past. Best dungeon designs, best boss fights, solid gameplay. Really light on the story, perhaps, but the fun factor makes up for that with me. | |
"If I where Link I'd throw down the master sword and say Look you want this mother f-er dead or not?" ROFLMAO Best line of the year! XD | |
Oh hi there, you must be new here at Zero Punctuation. Here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/926-Batman-Arkham-Asylum That should get you nice and caught up on things.
I'll just put aside the fact that it's really hard to tell if you're kidding, and the questions of why you're bothering to drag politics or debates about religion ect into this, so instead I'll just say this: Why have a Pinkie Pie avatar if you're going to spew the same hate and bile you're condemning? That's like... the exact OPPOSITE of what Pinkie does! The worst thing she did to someone she didn't like was throw them a party for goodness sake! It's really kinda depressing. | |
Actually if you ask a statistic-inclined person (statistician? whatever) rolling a dice will NOT result in a completely random outcome cuz of chaos theory and physics and blahdy blahdy blah. So you can't even get objectivity from completely inanimate objects! Never the less, I am so stealing this argument for whenever I get into a "why cant people be objective, wah wah wah" debate from now on. Thanks for that!
One wonders how full of yourself you have to be to think you "caused a flame war." And if you have a problem with people having different opinions then you, I'd recommend leaving planet earth, cuz that's just sorta how things work around here. The Borg might be a little more accepting of the idea that "everyone must agree with you or else violence" thing though! | |
xenoblade took 3secs. | |
Just highlight videos option with your mouse and click zero punctuation. | |
So? Mocking something and insulting something are close enough, he wasn't gently poking fun at it with a statement before or after to indicate sarcasm, he said (and I quote, for those who don't feel like opening the video and fast forwarding to this bit): "Skyward Sword is the worst Zelda game I have ever played, I mean, two of the dungeons just end with a generic boss fight with a recurring baddie, and you don't even defeat him with an item you found in the same dungeon, that's breaking a Zelda rule!" Was he being sarcastic with his 'that's breaking a Zelda rule'? Almost certainly. Did it seem (I'm not going to insist on this in case I am wrong, and if Yahtzee himself comes down to correct me I'm not going to argue, but I'm quite sure this is what he meant) that he did not like the changeup in the boss fight, and that he did not find any redeemable quality in the boss fight with Ghirahim (or whatever the fuck his name was)? Certainly seems that way to me. I thought it was refreshingly different to actually have to use your sword in a way other than 'wait for enemy to telegraph attack, attack enemy, repeat'. | |
I laughed. I'm not even involved in this argument, and I can see you're obviously beat, and resorted to calling the person who bested you in an argument a troll. If you don't like the game, fine. If you think it's too close to being the same as the other Zelda games, fine (unless you also think MW3, Skyrim, Assassin's Creed Revelations, SR3 are revolutionary), but don't just throw the 'troll' card out there when someone brings up a point you're not able to refute.
You missed the most important point: completely different controls. MW1, 2 and 3 all have essentially the same controls from what I've seen and played (haven't played #3 yet). Walking, aiming and shooting work the same, maybe it's a bit tighter from sequel to sequel, but you can pretty much pick up any FPS and guess that right trigger is shoot, up on the left thumbstick is walk forward, the right thumbstick is for aiming, etc. Skyward Sword has a totally different way of control than its predecessors. Also, CoD's different levels are certainly not as innovative (let alone more so) than Legend of Zelda's. Compare Twilight Princess to Skyward Sword. Twilight Princess was dark, moody, had a light world/dark world thing going on and you turned into a wolf. Skyward Sword is bright, slightly cartoonish, takes place on land and in the sky and you ride a big bird. MW1, you run around urban and industial areas and shoot people. MW2, you run around different urban areas, and shoot people. MW3, you run around different places, and I haven't played the game, so this is just a guess, but I think you shoot people. The graphics look nicer, but there's not a huge difference like in the Zelda games. Don't get me wrong, you are allowed to like what I don't like, if you don't like Skyward Sword, that's fine. If you just couldn't get into it, couldn't enjoy it, whatever, that's fine. The only time I have a problem is when someone says something intrinsically incorrect, like "MW3 is MORE different from MW2 than Skyward Sword is to Twilight Princess". That's just wrong, no two ways about it, and if you argue, you're wrong too. To say you ENJOYED MW3 more, is fine. To say you think MW3 is BETTER is fine, although I disagree, you're welcome to your opinion. To say that MW3 is more different from its predecessors than Skyward Sword, is just wrong. Oh, and as a little note, I do enjoy the CoD games, as well as other random FPS's here and there. Even if they all control almost the same, and the environments don't change immensely, they're fun, MW1 was very well designed and was a great game. I'm not going to whine that MW1, 2 and 3 were all pretty much the same, because if they had massive changes, they would lose the realism for which they were aiming, and unlike with Zelda, where the tutorial introduces the story, characters both new and familiar, new control scemes and different environments, most people who play CoD games wouldn't want to spend 2 hours learning the finer nuances of how to shoot at the beginning of the game, they would rather just be able to pick it up and know how to play it already. The MW series' similarities to each other are forgivable, but it's just silly to say they're more substantial than the differences in the Zelda series from game to game.
Anyone who hates the motion controls on Skyward Sword, especially those who haven't played it and are just trusting the hate, should watch this video. I have had absolutely no trouble with the motion controls on SS. I found the enemies who hold their swords specifically to block your readied attack to be a refreshing change from just slapping the B button until you land enough hits to kill them, specifically the enemies with electric swords, which punish you for fucking up and just waggling your wrist. Maybe some of the people held their Wiimote in their hand while it was calibrating instead of placing it on a flat surface like the message told them to, that could explain their failure, but to say the motion controls don't work when there's obvious evidence that the layman CAN easily get them to work, is, just like saying it's unoriginal, just plain incorrect.
Right. And people realized air travel would never be a big deal because the Wright Brothers' first airplane didn't take them across the Atlantic. Feel free to criticize the beta, I will agree that the Powerglove was a piece of shit, but to say something will never go anywhere just because the beta didn't work is just silly. It's decades later, and things have come a long way since the Powerglove. The Wiimote works.
Did I miss something here, like was part of a comment deleted (if so, please describe what was said, because I would like to know), or do you really not know what a psychopath is? I suggest you look up your (attempts at) insults in the dictionary before you spew them. Silly man. In short, I won't complain if someone doesn't like Skyward Sword, they are entitled to their opinion. If they didn't enjoy it, couldn't get into it, didn't like the artwork, the characters (especially Fi), that's okay. But if they say it's less original than MW3, they're wrong, if they say the motion control doesn't work, they're either doing something wrong, or they're wrong. | |
Could you please stop trying to spark up a flame war that ended a week ago. It's not very nice of you and it's already been clearly established that Nintendo fanboys are not capable of rational argument or listening to either facts or opinions. If you want to go and play with motion controls, go ahead, no one cares. Just don't expect everybody to join in your love for swatting a stick in your living room, just like I don't expect everybody to join in my love for being tied, gagged and whipped; it just isn't everybody's thing. | |
This. Instead of taking on board what they've been told, they'll proceed to type you an essay on why everything Nintendo does is solid gold. I actually used to enjoy Nintendo products back in the day, but this current generation for them as just been one long stagnant mess and if they keep up the way they appear to be with the Wii-U then I hope it breaks them as a company. (P.s. S&M for the win!) | |
Your post is especially amusing because, at the time of my original post, I hadn't even played Skyward Sword. Distressed fanboy indeed. Hard to be a fan of a game I haven't played yet, isn't it? Sounds to me like your post is actually saying "I don't know what I'm talking about, so I'll slap the fanboy label on you in a pathetic attempt to invalidate your differing opinion". Yahtzee is factually incorrect on several points, as those who have played the game (and those like myself, who have not but are at least INFORMED about the game and how it plays), and when people point this out, they're immediately dismissed as fanboys by people whose only knowledge of the title is that it's a Zelda game. The only ones who should be laughing are us, not you. Unless you're laughing at your own lack of experience and knowledge of the game. In which case, please continue.
Your mistaken and flawed example highlights a clear lack of understanding in what I'm complaining about. Allow me to explain with more valid examples taken from the review in question. Yahtzee's review is quoted as saying that every game since the Ocarina of Time is "the same game" with another package. This is not a subjective opinion, it is a statement whose validity can, in fact, be measured and tested....and proven wholly false. Here is a list my friend (who has actually played the game and many other Zelda titles) constructed that provides some clear examples of major mechanical changes to the game. I've added some comments of my own in parentheses.
Keep in mind that this is just a list of mechanical changes. It does not delve into the story, which is actually quite radically different from the other games (to the point of being somewhat jarring as it introduces major changes to the pre-existing Zelda canon). It establishes another deity in Hyrule's pre-existing pantheon, as well as introducing new main villains and several previously unknown NPCs that explain a lot of the naming schema behind Hyrule. With such a vast number of changes, how can one possibly argue that SS is "the same game" as OoT? It's really very obvious that not only is Yahtzee wrong in this sentiment, he's allowing his own subjective hatred of the franchise to cloud his judgment, which results in his fans being completely misinformed about the game. His claims that "well, I liked Wind Waker" are not enough to convince me, or anyone, that he is able to perform an unbiased review of a Zelda title, or even a Nintendo title in general. His recent statements in Extra Punctuation state that he isn't against Nintendo, so much as he is against "games which aren't fun". Except that "fun" is not only an absurdly subjective entity that will vary entirely around the individual, it's also a very weak defense against damning evidence of his very wrong statements that he chooses to willfully ignore. Note that his Extra Punctuation does not, in any way, address WHY he believes that OoT and SS are "the same game". He just dismisses the notion that he's anti-Nintendo (even though in his own reviews, he all but admits this to be the case) and whines about the lack of an open world. That's it. That's his paltry defense against valid criticisms of his review. This is what I'm talking about. Those posting in favor of this review, I note, tend to be mostly composed of individuals who have no knowledge whatsoever of the game or even the franchise itself. And so, when Yahtzee makes a statement that is clearly false, they do not know better and will presume his statements to be the factual truth, which is part of my call for more accuracy and objectivity. Reviews are indeed subjective, but good reviewers provide not only their opinions but a relative structure to things. For example, one very excellent reviewer from That Guy With The Glasses is Linkara, a comic book reviewer who provides not only his opinion on a subject (which people may or may not agree with) but gives good, rational reasons for that opinion, and provides the viewer with a clear lay of the land. You get more than just an opinion, you get information about what precisely is happening, detailed information about the situation from both an IC and OOC perspective, and clear visual evidence to help confirm both his opinions and statements. In addition, he is quick to correct errors and admit to them. Yahtzee, by contrast, does absolutely none of these things. His reviews feature no footage from the game to demonstrate the problems he's having so you're expected to assume that what he says is the truth. You get a synopsis that could fit on a milk carton, often leaving out major details. The whole review is riddled with his own subjectivity to the point where he makes clearly and provable false statements that are taken as true by his fans, and when he is called on these statements, he'll either deny them outright or turn them back on the users. This is most evident in his Mailbag Showdown (which so many have quoted on this page) in which he picks out some of the worst written complaint emails from his mailbag as if they're a representative sample of all of the opinions presented against him ever, never bothering to address real valid complaints that come up during discussions of his reviews. Is it any wonder that I'd make a plea for more objectivity when it's become very obvious that there is absolutely none remaining? | |
He actually states "Despite graphical changes and game play tweaks.... same game." Your list of gameplay tweak does not change the fact that every game since OOT is a slight change from the last one. And he doesn't hate the Zelda series. He quite likes Wind-Waker and the Gamecube version of Twilight Princess. And he doesn't hate Nintendo, he hates rereleasing the same IP over and over with minor graphical/gameplay changes. It's a valid opinion. Not an opinion I agree with but a valid opinion. And Motion controls, he hates motion controls. And you seem to be clinging to the remarkably stupid idea that reviewers should ignore their own opinion. What is he supposed to do? Visit metacritic before writing? Why even review the game. And You're forgetting that he makes these reviews from a comedy standpoint. And he shits on 90% of the games he plays. Why would you expect him to stop here. And I wonder why you would care so much about one particular opinion of a game. | |
*Yawn* So you hadn't played the game, yet took sides based on...? And you claimed to be informed, based on? Oh that's right, nothing but other people's claims. And what do we call people who take sides about a game by basing themselves on nothing but others' claims about said game, especially when those people insist on the importance of having "experience" and "knowledge" of the game? That's right: we call them fanboys. That's you. Moving right along... and I'm still laughing at you, because you're wasting your time writing those "novels" of yours. Keep at it. | |
So if significant gameplay changes don't count as "significant changes" to major franchises (which, in and of itself, is a headdeskingly dumb statement), then I submit that NO franchise in the whole of existence has ever provided a significant change from game to game. Starcraft 2? Same game as SC1. Diablo 2? Meh, it's just like Diablo 1, right? Uncharted 3? More like Uncharted 2 with new box art, amirite? Do you see how ludicrous your argument gets when you start claiming that major changes to story, gameplay, and the mechanics are not significant enough to separate one title from the next?
Yes, he does hate the Zelda franchise. He openly ripped into Twilight Princess quite thoroughly in his review (and also called it identical to OoT), he only looked back on the game with more appeal after playing a game with a similar style but a weaker execution (Darksiders, IIRC).
....you haven't even looked at a screenshot of OoT against SS or TP, much less actually looked up a synopsis of any of those three games, have you bro?
Sort of my point. If he admits openly to a bias against something, then plays a game that heavily features it, and then whines that the game is bad because of said feature, that's no longer a valid opinion. That's just silly. That's like whining that he'd like Battlefield 3 a lot more if it weren't an FPS. The game is designed to heavily integrate motion controls, so why exactly is it "valid" for him to whine that the game might be better if it didn't feature that one major thing it's built around? You're basically saying "this game would be much better if it were a totally different game than it currently is". Incidentally, Diablo 2 would have been better if it had been a turn-based strategy game taking place on Venus with aliens instead of demons, and your hero rode on a velociraptor.
I never suggested he should ignore his own opinion. Let's try reading what I said again, but correctly this time.
What I said (and indeed, what I meant) was that a reviewer should do more than give a 15 second synopsis, iron the words "I hated it" onto a poster board and hold it up, then spend the next 4-6 minutes ranting about much smaller aspects of the game that bothered them. That tells the audience precisely nothing about the game, only the individual things that the specific reviewer didn't like.
I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps making my posts so long is causing people to not read them. I've said at least three times that I fully comprehend that his reviews are intended to be funny and that I only watch them for humor's sake myself. But some people take his word as the word of God, and assume that he's speaking the truth. It's worth my time writing out these long posts if it means convincing even a few people to stop and say "Hey, on second thought, that guy makes a good point. Maybe I should look at this game and decide for myself if it's the sort of thing I'd like, rather than letting Yahtzee pick my games for me". To repeat: Honestly? *I* don't care about his opinion. But I don't want other people to dumbly watch his review and go "durr, otay, I no buy 'cuz Yahtzee knows all". I expect people to look up games and get an informed opinion about them before dismissing them. Listening to someone else tell you what to buy (especially someone like Yahtzee, who tends to hate a vast majority of what he plays) is a very poor idea, and it's unfortunately not contributing positively to the gaming industry when people blindly listen to one specific opinion over a wave of dissenting opinions. I understand the adorable hipster notion that the mainstream reviewers are "crap" and all, but if 30-40 different review groups are all saying virtually the same thing? Maybe the one dissenting voice saying "IT R CRAP AND WORST GAME EVAR" is the one that should be drowned out for once. Or maybe people should just try to get informed and make their own judgments. Just sayin'. | |
You clearly care quite a bit as demonstrated by your compulsion to write 1000s of words outlining your opinion. ITS A GAME. A VERY SUCCESSFUL GAME. YOU HAVE DIFFERING OPINIONS OF SAID GAME. YAHTZEE'S OPINION IS NOT GOING TO HURT ZELDA. GET OVER IT. You're acting like he's taken the opposing view in the abortion debate. | |
I laughed so hard at "starved inbred kittens" | |
I apologize, I was not aware that you didn't like to read long posts that politely and maturely dismiss your points. Allow me to summarize it, then: You're wrong, Yahtzee's wrong, and I hope you have a pleasant day. | |
How can he be wrong? He's played the games in the series; he has an opinion of them informed by that. You have a different opinion. It also seems strange to say that only people who like Zelda or know the entirety of Zelda Canon can review a Zelda game. Isn't that a demand for bias on your part? | |
Zelda fan since childhood here.. Skyward Sword is, without question, the worst Zelda game out there. At least 3D one. I really hated the Oracle of Seasons/Ages games. SO BORING. Also, Minish Cap was probably the best GameBoy Advance game, right next to (in my opinion) Metroid Fusion. | |
mass argumentum ad ignorantiam He's correcting them and is right in doing so. It's important to be educated in all things.
Argumentum ad populum look it up.
Red herring and Ad hominem. | |
Wow. Your mastery of Wikipedia has disarmed me. I'm still not willing to argue. What does that tell you? I would try and outwit you using other logical fallacies you are guilty of and pointing out the ones you don't understand but use anyway, however I won't waste anymore of my time to stoop to that level of immaturity. | |
I used them all correctly and hardly said enough for there to be any fallacies. And no it isn't wikipedia this kind of thing is used for fictional or otherwise debates and pointing out faults in logic when in such debates. | |
I am not saying his opinion is wrong, I'm saying that arguing that Skyward Sword is the "same game" as OoT is wrong. Which it is.
If a reviewer references a previous title in the franchise as an example of what they don't like in a game, then yes, I do expect them to know what the hell they're talking about. Otherwise you end up with stuff like this: "I don't like how Uncharted 4's plot plays out. I much prefer the plot of Uncharted 3, in which Drake is abducted by the aliens from Indiana Jones who take him to the Aperture Science labs to do tests with Chell." "Diablo 3's new mechanics don't work very well. I prefer Diablo 2's gameplay, in which players would take turns moving their heroes around on a chess board." And other similarly cringe-worthy statements. A reviewer who is uninformed of the subject they're talking about should not be given any credence whatsoever. It is a reviewer's job to get informed and to provide an informed opinion of something because that is what they are paid to do. And please, don't use the exhausting excuse of "he's not a reviewer, he's a critic", since we both know that the two are the same thing. Now why is this such a big deal? Because he has gone on record as saying that he's never played OoT. He has played Phantom Hourglass, Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, and now Skyward Sword. Yet in both his TP and SS reviews, he claims that they are the same as OoT....even though he has never played it before. How can he possibly reference OoT as an example of what SS does wrong when he doesn't know a single thing about the game? If Yahtzee had not dragged the tired, beaten-to-death excuse that SS is "just like OoT" into the discussion, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I'd have just enjoyed the review and laughed, disagreed, and went back to playing the game anyways. It's entirely his own fault (and perhaps partially yours) that I'm still here, defending the game against a blatantly false statement. :p | |
I think he played the remake. | |
He has played OoT. He's even got a review of it. A review where he first brings up his point that OoT just feels like the blueprint for the following games. To paraphrase yourself - Why don't you get informed on the subject you're talking about? I think his point is that he'd like to see the Zelda formula applied to something less tired than the Zelda story format. Something say, like, for example, a story about magic wolf who paints spells with a magic brush. And if you actually watch the review he does more that complain about it being similar to it's predecessors. He complains about there being less exploration and that the dungeon bosses aren't as well designed. And to define what "review" as if a reviewer were legally required to do anything is stupid. If you want reviews with "credibility" (whatever the fuck that is) there's the reviews page of the escapist, or IGN, or EDGE. And even they have to put up with retarded arguments like "They don't know what they're talking about." or "They didn't review the game properly." Or "They're biased." | |
Not on this website, he doesn't. I looked before I posted. Perhaps he did years and years ago on Youtube, but if you honestly expected me to go hunting through his YouTube account for all of his old reviews, then I'm not sure if I can take you seriously amy more because it's obvious that you sure as hell don't. When you look at reviews from your local movie critic, do you dive into the last 20 years of his review history to make sure he can be trusted? Why the hell would you expect me to know about a review that doesn't appear on this website in any form? Especially when, in his SS review, he does not indicate OoT as one of the games he's played. Look back at the review. When he says the words "Skyward Sword is the worst Zelda I've ever played", he shows box art for all of the Zelda games he's played. And OoT is not among them. Go ahead, look back at the review and tell me I'm wrong, that I just mistakenly misjudged one of the four games on that panel and that it actually reads "Ocarina of Time" instead of "Phantom Hourglass", "Twilight Princess", or "Wind Waker". So I was apparently supposed to figure out, through psychic visions no less, that he actually DID play OoT even though he gave no indication of this fact in his review, and he has no OoT review anywhere on the site. >_> And you're telling ME to get informed? Telling ME to watch his review more carefully? What a joke. I suggest YOU rewatch it, because it's rather obvious that if you're going to rabidly defend Yahtzee to the bitter end, then at least you should know what his review actually says and shows.
That wouldn't be a Zelda game, that would be Okami. If he just wants another Okami then he should go play Okami, and stop bitching and moaning about how Zelda isn't Okami. :p
You trollin', bro? I've said that I saw the damn review. And I already addressed ALL of those points. The only one I take any real issue with is the fact that he claims OoT and SS are "the same game". I suggest you actually go back and read those large blocks of text that I posted, because a lot of the strawmen arguments you're throwing up right now were dismissed long ago by those big blocks of text you couldn't be bothered to read.
I had to read this three times to make sure you were being serious. You actually think Yahtzee has credibility as compared to major sites like IGN? You do realize that even if "credibility" weren't absurdly questionable from all critics to start with, given the subjectivity of one opinion versus another, that sites like IGN are miles ahead of dudes like Yahtzee as far as "credentials" are concerned, right? And that far more people are going to trust a Metacritic rating over Yahtzee's 5-minute ravings, yes? xD Yahtzee is a critic like any other, but let's not even try to pretend he ballparks in the same vicinity as major video game critics. It's akin to comparing Roger Ebert to your local newspaper movie critic....and regardless of what you think of Ebert as a person, you have to submit that the man's credentials far exceed any bit-artist from a local newspaper and that he probably has some clue what he's talking about. Who cares if they're biased or not? All critics are to some degree. Their opinion matters because they provide information on top of their opinions. They back up their opinions with decent opinions, even if they're not always superbly well informed. They, for the most part, TRY to play a game and measure its positive and negative qualities. Yahtzee does not do this. He rips into games for the sake of making people laugh, he doesn't do it for any other reason. I'd sooner take the word of Jim Sterling on a game's value than Yahtzee's, because at least that guy has the sense to defend his points with some valid arguments. Yahtzee throws a tantrum when the "fanbois" get to him, as shown by the recent Extra Punctuation. But this was never about that. The point from the very start was "Yahtzee really shouldn't make up lies to back his opinion, and then bitch and whine when people correct him", and yet here we still are, with you ferociously defending him and me just trying to be realistic. I don't care about his opinion, I don't care about anyone's opinion. I already made my own decision about the game. I just want Yahtzee to stop lying. SS and OoT are not the same game, and you have to be extremely ignorant to claim such a thing....whether you're a Zelda fanboi to the very end, or you've never played a Zelda in your entire life. As someone who has played a grand total of three Zelda titles (including SS), I can say it's a total load of bollocks. | |
Umm.... Your round bro. | |
"When you look at reviews from your local movie critic, do you dive into the last 20 years of his review history" Page 2... | |
Very rarely does Zero Punctuation provide any consumer advice. And I think your have fundamentally misunderstood my argument. My suggestion is that if you want dry formal review that you should stick to IGN. Why the fuck would you demand it from a 5 minute comedy video? If a comedian writes a light, witty, op-ed piece in a newspaper do you get offended because it was irreverent and didn't take the topic seriously? | |
If we are counting, Yahtzee's actually played 5 Zelda titles so he's got you beaten there. | |
And I believe he's actually making fun of your blind adoration of all things Zelda. I know I am. | |
It's pretty obvious this conversation isn't going anywhere productive so I'm not going to waste any further time. I've given very thorough explanations of my point of view, and when I did that, you just tl;dr'd at me. It's pretty obvious you're just trying to provoke me and I'm not interested in your pissing match.
No need, you win that one. I missed it. *shrug* I actually admit to my mistakes.
Yes, because that's a meaningful statistic. I was more quoting it to defend myself against the very next post you made, which is thoroughly idiotic given the previous statement you just quoted:
I actually hate most Zelda games. I can't stand the handheld stuff, Wind Waker annoys me, and I had no interest whatsoever in MM. Your attempt at pinning me as a fanboi is entirely failed, it failed several pages ago, and it's not going to work now. >_> Have fun talking to yourself. I tried to explain myself very thoroughly and politely at first, but I'm not going to waste time talking to a wall who isn't willing to do any reading. | |
You're the one claiming that he hasn't played the Zelda games and therefore doesn't know what he's talking about.
Huh... So you hate the Zelda games I like. I think Wind Waker is the best Game of the series. And Majora's Mask has an awesome creepiness to it. Points of view that are at odds with most of the Zelda Fan base. By your definitions of review however, I'd still have to rate them lower than OoT and TP. A ridiculous proposition. This complaint that Yahtzee doesn't know what he is talking about is false. The point that he hates the Zelda games is false (I doubt he even hates this one, he sounds disappointed more than anything.). The claim that he hasn't played the Zelda games is false. And the idea that reviews must to conform to some undeclared set of standards has no basis. Reviewers across the internet have to put up with these accusations whenever some block-head thinks that a game automatically deserves universal acclaim. And the truly absurd thing is that people put so much vehemence into their arguments, vehemence which should be reserved for true outrages such as this: http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-is-law-now-heres-what-you-need-to-know-2012-1 Or this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act Or this. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/01/256823/pregnant-women-criminal-charges/
I can't find any reference to you hating Zelda Games. I'm sure it's there but unfortunately you're unable to you make your points pithily and concisely. Learn to self edit and maybe this wouldn't occur. | |
So games need to be judged by comparing them to their predecessor. Edit: | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT | |
the "I FOUND A PLOTHOLE NURSE" had me pissing myself XD
it's the panic at the end that really made it work :P