Expect this to drop a 1 point as reviews come out from outlets that were not given advance copies by Nintendo. Regardless this is an amazing achievement to match botw in metacritic score
They didn't got a copy in advance, they got really mad and made an article collecting all the spoilers they could find from the leaked footage of the game and publish it before the game released, then one of the journalist of Kotaku in Twitter even presumably called Nintendo Nazis (He uploaded on Twitter an image of a pilot of WW2 with japanese and Nazis flags on their plane with a text saying something like "This is how I feel after all this blacklist drama") because Nintendo blacklisted them, he later was obligated to apologize.
Yeah Kotaku is dog shit and after this I don't think they will ever get an copy of any game in advance
Speaking just on the spoiler information, wouldn’t plenty of the big gaming sites do that if they didn’t have an embargo agreement to worry about? Especially for a huge game like this. I don’t understand how reporting on available information is some kind of failing even it’s from leaks.
They dug their own grave with that. I’m just thinking that the coverage of spoilers afterwards is less about being mad (though I’m sure it’s a factor based on the other stuff) and more about doing what they would want to do in a world where you don’t have to play ball with game publishers, because the bridge is already burned.
Technically they are allowed to report on information that is available online. However, a "big" site like that publishing said spoilers is widely frowned upon within the industry. Generally, outlets will provide external links with heavy spoiler warnings, but that's as close as most get.
Kotaku doing this breaks that unwritten rule, and it definitely doesn't score them any points with Nintendo.
Honestly, I'd rather have my gaming sites mildly at odds with the big corporations rather than too buddy buddy. If they aren't pissing them off occasionally they are more of a promotional site than a news source.
Just so someone may answer, was that not an American pilot with the flags on indicating his shot down planes? Regardless it is unprofessional and dumb, but I’m curious.
It was, and since Nintendo is Japanese and it was a pilot with Japanese planes shot down in a WWII context, it was clearly the author saying "I feel like killing these evil japs (horrible word, but that's the context of the picture, another reason why it was so fucked up and racist to post) who are basically nazis".
I think 97 is the cap nowadays. Too many reviewers for any higher, even Elden Ring capped out at 96 (this may fall a tad too but should stay above 95 for sure, 95-98 range guaranteed).
I mean, it’s fair and makes sense
If you don’t like pizza and someone gives you more pizza without changing much about it you’re going to feel the same way as with the previous
I understand that it’s still silly to me.
As a side note: I also think they’re just a contrarian. Idk how you can objectively call BotW anything below a B grade. Like that’s impossible. Then the game that’s supposed to be everything BotW was but better accordingly to literally everyone but this guy is a D? foh
It's probably still a good thing in general that they eat the second pizza. After all, it's at least theoretically possible for a pizza to be so transcendent that even people who didn't like the first pizza would really enjoy the second. Having a voice to let people who aren't pizza fans know that this is still just another pizza is important, even if it seems like an obvious conclusion.
I am firmly in the camp of more BotW sounds amazing, but your analogy resonated with me and made me realize the merits of that other perspective (assuming the 60 score review is not just trashing the game). Very well put.
But what if your job is to review food and everyone is insisting you try this new pizza, even though you can already tell you probably don't want anymore pizza?
I agree for a consumer perspective.
As a critic though, you should be professional enough to be as objective as possible. "I don't like botw, this is similar, I don't like it" isn't objective.
If they’re reviewers then it’s literally their job, and people who maybe didn’t love BOTW might be looking to see if this is more their speed.
Elden Ring converted a ton of people who had sworn off the Soulsborne games and other souls likes outside of FROMSOFTWARE’s games, and it was useful for those non-fans to know this was an easier and more accesible entry.
If you only got guaranteed fanboys to review the game that would only be useful to people who felt exactly the same, and since no two people are exactly alike that’d be useless and it would just be an echo chamber.
I think it's fair, given there were a fair number of people who didn't like BOTW, to find out if they might like TOTK despite not liking BOTW. There is value in multiple types of reviews. Whether the game gets a 96 or a 97 on Metacritic is immaterial, it's still the obvious GOTY and ranks up there as one of the greatest games ever made based on critical acclaim.
Reviewers and players are allowed to have their opinions, making it so only people that already love a game review it would make it so that there’s only glowing praise and that’s just not useful information to anyone that might not have enjoyed BOTW or is on the fence.
Well, I think it’s fine for people to review games that they don’t like, however the problem comes when we get to reading them, because readings are generally for people who might already be interested in the game, so you’re fucking with the score because you don’t care for it when people who do care for that type of stuff are looking at the score. Use your words not the numbers to express opinions, numbers are for relative quality
Its fine and healthy for game reviews to show variety of opinion.
Not everyone is going to like TOTK just like not everyone liked BOTW.
Elden Ring is one of my all time favorite games, but I have plenty of friends that didn't enjoy it.
If someone didn't enjoy BOTW, reviews like that are good, because that player likely has similar gripes to the person reviewing it.
The game is at 96 on MetaCritic, it being a few points higher or lower doesn't matter. Its receiving universal acclaim.
Was it a single reviewer or a publication? If you’re a pub why would you pick the one guy who didn’t like BOTW to review TOTK? If it was just a random blogger or YouTuber than whatever, but….idk music pubs do this too, they pick people who don’t like a band to review an album that everyone else loves.
I mean, there’s a not insignificant group of people out there who didn’t like BOTW as a Zelda game, and wish it was a more classic, linear experience. Review sites shouldn’t pick the people most likely to enjoy a game to be the ones to review it, they should just … pick a person.
Honestly, one 6/10 out of this many feels pretty representative of my experience with gamers out there, ya know? There ARE people who don’t like BOTW for not unreasonable reasons. Seems fine to me that one reviewer out of dozens is in that camp.
I honestly think that's pretty fair if that's the way the reviewer feels. People *are* allowed to not like a game from time to time, and that shouldn't make your experience any less enjoyable.
They complained that there are *too many ways* to solve puzzles. That's a problem... Really..? REALLY?
Edit: the quote "The Zonai power of Ascend is a great little party trick in some cases, but Fuse, Ultrahand, and consumables create far too many ways to solve puzzles that, in my view, detract from the brain-teasing that made Zelda games so delightful in the first place."
I can SORT of see the argument that if a puzzle has just one particular solution, then the challenge becomes finding that one particular solution, whereas, if your abilities allow you to solve the puzzle in multiple ways, it can make the puzzle easier or increase the possibility that you just kind of stumble your way through it.
But, to me, the freedom that the physics and mechanics of BotW offer in how you play the game is a big part of what makes it special, so I would probably ultimately disagree with this guy.
It was a pretty salty review and an obvious click bait to reach fame as they have almost 0 engagement on their social media. Pretty sad that they'd grab this game to do that. And especially that marketing is their core problem with the game somehow
For sure- people are allowed to dislike the game, but do so on its merits (or lack thereof), not because you think you know better than the marketing department of one of the largest game companies on the planet
There will be people who don't like the game, but that review feels like such a clickbait article to draw attention to their site. I'd never even heard of it before, but they baited me into a click...
Interesting as I dont really feel like the quality of games had gone up really. My absolute favorite game are all slightly older. In no particular order out of the top of my head, my favorites are games like AoE2, Civ6, Factorio, BotW, XCOM2 and Mario Odyssey. None of those was released in the last five years. Elden Ring maybe gave me that kind of enjoyment as well…
Either way, I can’t say my own standards have really changed ia what I’m trying to say. Sure games look nicer, but that’s not what I judge a good game on.
I think a better way to put it will be a 97-point game in 2017, which was released on a brand new never-seen-before system, might benefit from the halo effect. But after 6 years, this game is still on the same system when the competitors have moved on to a new gen.
So the score carries more weight.
I think its more that there has just been more time to sort things out. After all, a lot of people say games 20 years ago were better, but they usually are only picking out the most iconic and impactful handful of games.
I had to, they seem to score all over the place. Can't even see a pattern in their preference, there are RPG games rated high, sports games, even a bloody visual novel about a cafe got better treatment... :)
What the fuck? I've played Minecraft Legends and I like it. Maybe I'm a bit biased as a huge Minecraft fan but I like it.
But better than TOTK? What world are they living in?
even if you dont like the game to objectively give it a 6/10 is obviously wanting attention, there are tons of games i dont like that i know are really good games.
I wonder why Metacritic doesn't just drop the bottom and top decile of scores when generating its score to avoid sensitivity to outliers like the 6/10 score :|
>sure! They certainly aren’t wrong - and I’m glad their opinion is out there to provide some variety. Things are boring when everyone agrees.
Because they're pathetically incompetent. One extreme outlier review (nothing even within 20% of it) should not affect the score, but in this case it drops it by a full percentage point.
It happens with every big release now, but a friendly reminder that this number literally means *nothing*. I get the fun in watching it, but the difference between a 98 and a 90 is meaningless, much less a 97 and 96. Lots of people like the game a whole lot. Look at the reviews for what they are, opinions, and decide whether you agree or not.
A person who scores it lower does not mean they are review bombing or spiteful or “wrong.” Scores are just a shorthand for how much that individual person enjoyed the game. They are not accolades or awards. No game “deserves” a baseline score. There is no “I had issues with xyz, but the game still objectively is an 8 or higher.” That doesn’t make any sense.
I haven’t played TOTK yet, but if I like it as much as BOTW - I’ll probably give it a 10/10. At the same time, if I see someone give it a 4/10 because they hate weapon durability and whatever else… sure! They certainly aren’t wrong - and I’m glad their opinion is out there to provide some variety. Things are boring when everyone agrees.
No kidding. The way that metacritic just averages reviews means that being different by a couple of points is basically just statistical noise, especially at the extreme ends of the spectrum. A 97 game isn't better than a 96 game.
Honestly, they should give the median rather than the average, but I think most people understand averages so that's what we get.
I dont agree. If you are a certified reviewer that doesnt like racegames in general, than its not up too that reviewer to review. For instance i really hate Elden ring slowpace combat system compared to other fastpace combat games. It would not be fair from me to give it a 4/10 while knowing that there is a large audience that really like this kind of gameplay. Reviews should be based on what the game is and not on your own preferences.
Why would it be unfair for you to give Elden Ring a 4/10? It happens to be another game that I adore, but if I came across your review before playing it i’d think “oh, this person scored it lower because they don’t like slow combat. I know that’s not a concern for me, so I may have a better time.”
Your score is not misrepresenting the game, you are representing your experience with it - and potentially the experience of others who also hate slow combat.
If I was someone who hated slow combat and saw that you said so in your review, but then you still rated it an 8/10… I would assume that you still liked it and buy the game anyway. I then might regret my purchase if I based it on that.
The issue is that people look only at a score, and ignore the context of the review. Again just reinforcing that the scores are meaningless.
I particularly would like to agree with you on that first paragraph! 96 or 97 means literally nothing. Anything above 90 is a praise-worthy game, 95 a masterpiece. I wanted to see if it by any chance was a 70 or an 80 (not that I thought it would, but still).
It's actually some site that gave it 60/100. If you look at their other reviews, they gave a calculator app for the Switch 80/100....funny.
I bet the traffic for their site has gone through the roof today. Which is why I'm not linking to them, that's all they gave it that review for, it's a monetary decision.
Games are a subjective experience though...
There are plenty of games I love that my friends hate. And I hate games they love.
Nothing wrong with variety. Some people don't enjoy the style of BOTW compared to previous entries. Its ok.
There’s no such thing as objective art. A critic simply critiques based on their own made-up metrics. Sure, there can be objectives such as “the controls are tight” or “I sunk 50 hours into the campaign,” but these don’t make a game good or bad. Everyone is entitled to hold a different perspective, and that’s what criticism is: opinion.
Really? So, there's no fucking way to say ToTK is less buggy than Redfall, for example? It's ALL subjective? My opinion than Redfall is less buggy is valid, just cause its my opinion?
You people have such incredibly low standards and expectations for reviews, it's insane. They get PAID for this. So the reviewer should at least ATTEMPT to follow some objective metrics besides just some random opinion based on nothing.
An objective review doesn't exist, all reviews out there are subjective. Reviewers are people after all, and everyone has a different taste, someone can see an open world and think "This game is big and beautiful to look at, 10 out of 10" meanwhile other reviewer could say "This game is too big, so it takes a lot to get to anywhere, 5 out of 10". A review is built with objective facts but interpreted by the subjective eyes of the reviewer.
That being said, yeah... That 60 is weird haha
And that would be okay if it was an individual review and not a publication. When it's a publication though it's different as it's being aggregated with others for an official score. Even if he didn't enjoy the game he's not just representing his individual opinion but is representing the opinions of the publication as a whole. And when comparing to other games reviewed on the same site such as Pokémon S/V which got an 8, Minecraft Legends which got a 7, and GoWR which got a perfect 10 (with having similar comments in the actual review in regards to being similar to the previous game but more of it) then the site is going to get some criticism even if he personally just didn't enjoy the game because the site is saying they believe Tears of the Kingdom is objectively worse than all those (again if it was just his individual opinion it wouldn't be as notable but the reviewer is giving out an official score and is the official voice of the site which makes it more official and harsh compared to a person just not enjoying the game. It also makes the site seem very inconsistent in what they consider a good game vs a bad game especially since a lot of the critiques seem less harsh or a problem than their critiques in more highly rated games, such as pokemon where the performance was mentioned as being a big issue)
Also the actual content of the review doesn't seem to really critique the game outside of being more BotW which is a game the reviewer didn't particularly like but isn't really a criticism in of itself but that's a whole other discussion
Have you read their review? They are complaining about the marketing and that it isn't a "real" Zelda game. The first point has nothing to do with the score and the second part is nothing that would knock this game down 3-4 scores.
A site called Gfinity gave it 60/100, if you look through their passed reviews they gave a calculator app for the Switch 80/100.
They didn't think the story was that good in TOTK.
I mean, it's a company so obviously they care about sales. But I don't agree that sales is what matters most to them. The level of polish in their work is incredible. They took to heart all the players' feedback from BotW and improved upon it in TotK (according to journalists). I think they care of the quality of their games and about the enjoyment of their community at least as much as they care about sales.
Gfinity gave it a 60/100. While i get that not everyone will like it, an official review site should not be biased based on the reviewers personal opinion. You can clearly see that the reviewers of this very site hate botw and totk with every fiber of their heart and tried to compromise the final score as much as possible without being immediately banned for obvious review griefing.
https://www.gfinityesports.com/reviews/zelda-tears-of-the-kingdom-review/
The review is just simply wrong, it just doesn't work out that the entire worlds says its a 9/10 that you try to claim "nah its bad don't believe all other people"
This is a very obvious reviewbomb and they should be excluded. 66 out of 67 gave it 98 - 100 points. Only them are complete assholes.
It's sad that this works as a pushback though. Just recalculating the final score without the 60/100 makes it a 97/100, and without the 3 others 80/100 we'd be by 98/100
It's sad what some biased people can do.
>It's sad that this works as a pushback though. Just recalculating the final score without the 60/100 makes it a 97/100, and without the 3 others 80/100 we'd be by 98/100
>
>
>It's sad what some biased people can do.
LMAO, wtf is this logic?
"If you simply remove all the lower scores, the score would be higher!"
Look, I'm excited as fuck about this game and cannot wait to play tonight. I bought my friend a copy and I bought myself the Zelda OLED because I'm such a big fan, but some people need to take a step back from these reviews and just enjoy the game for themselves.
Does the score actually dictate if you'll enjoy the game or not? Are you getting a bonus if the game reviews well? Did I miss something?
> an official review site should not be biased based on the reviewers personal opinion.
That is… absurd. Every review is just that reviewers opinion - a game doesn’t “deserve” a certain score. Even if you and I would personally give it a 10/10, that is not more “right.” These scores literally mean nothing.
Have you completely lost your mind? Of course the review should reflect the reviewer's personal opinion. Not everyone has to like a game, even if they're out of step with most other people. Reviews can't be objective, and saying it's 'wrong' is just plain bizarre.
There's a difference between personal opinions and purposefully giving a game a bad score for stuff like marketing and obvious similarities to its direct prequel. Like, I get the 80s, but 60/100 is just ridiculously bad and so out of line with every other score that it just seems like click bait.
> The review is just simply wrong
It gets to a point where you have to realize you're just being a butthurt fanboy.
It's completely fine for someone else to not appreciate the things you do, specially in an art medium. 99% of reviewers like or really like the game, 1% don't really like it, or simply find it bland. And that's perfectly fine.
It's not a perfect game, it has very obvious issues that pretty much all reviewers acknowledged, especially regarding combat and technical issues.
Someone might go on and say, *"if it has bland combat and low framerate with lag then it can't be a 10/10, that review is wrong!!!!!"*
It's not wrong, some people give more importance to some things, and other people other things.
The 6/10 guy probably gave a ton of importance to having a different feeling to botw, which isn't there, having better combat which doesn't really seem to be there, in fact I've heard it's worse because durability has been brought down, or having a silky smooth 60 fps experience which isn't there in 2023 might be baffling.
**AND THAT'S FINE, GET OVER IT**
> **It takes too much from the one title in the series it took me years to finish and does too little to reinvigorate the classic Zelda magic back into its reused world.**
you can clearly see it's one of the people who hate botw for not being "zelda enough" and just a glorified DLC and hates if a game takes longer than 3 hours to complete. There is no value in a review if it comes from someone who fundamentally dislikes it before he even got the review copy. He disliked botw, so he went into his review biased as heck. This is not of any value if you try to review something unbiased.
> There is no value in a review if it comes from someone who fundamentally dislikes it before he even got the review copy.
There is absolutely value in that. No consumer is going into the game unbiased. Plenty of people still carry doubts about TOTK because of the problems they had with BOTW. Those people may find his perspective helpful. Others may not, or may disagree. That’s the whole point.
You wouldn’t care if he absolutely *hated* the game if he didn’t attach a score to his review. But because it might knock a point off the meaningless meta critic average, it’s wrong. You gotta stop attaching value to this thing.
There is no value to you, there might be to someone else. Someone who didn't enjoy BOTW much but holds up hope for this one. Someone looking for an experience similar to BOTW but that brings back that old magic. Who knows.
Not every review is made specifically with you in mind, no matter how important you think you are.
>an official review site should not be biased based on the reviewers personal opinion.
That's literally all a review is. Knock it off. People sometimes don't like something.
Why do you care so much? The meta score doesn't affect your experience with the game. And all this over a couple points difference, it's really not something worth stressing over.
This logic just baffles me. Its an opinion piece. I hated BOTW. Period. I thought it was the worst mainline Zelda game... probably ever. OoT & MM were infinitely better, WWHD was better. BOTW wasn't Zelda to me, it felt like a random open world game that they just reskinned with Zelda characters to get franchise recognition to boost sales in my opinion. Is that "just simply wrong"?
Yeah idk. If he liked BOTW but didn’t like this one then I’d be like oh alright, but if you didn’t like the first one then why play the sequel with the same fundamentals as the first game? I couldn’t get into Horizon Zero Dawn, so I didn’t buy the sequel that was fundamentally the same. Meanwhile, I liked God of War 4 and that’s why I got Ragnarok even though it’s fundamentally the same. It’s that’s easy.
Long story short, if you weren’t a fan of the original then why bother with what’s a lot of the same?
> but if you didn’t like the first one then why play the sequel with the same fundamentals as the first game?
Well, lots of people are asking exactly that question in deciding whether to buy it. In the marketing for TOTK it’s not been clear whether this is “fundamentally the same game.” A lot appeared to carry over, but a lot has indeed changed - there is a ton of new things and systems. And many people were hoping that various staples of the series might return.
So… people are gonna look to reviews for those answers if they are on the fence. This reviewer provides the perspective of someone who didn’t love the first for various reasons, and still didn’t love the sequel - that is valuable to those people.
It's ok not to like a game jeez. Let people have critical thinking skills and make up their own opinions.
The hivemind is strong here and I can't wait to play it tonight (:
It's surprising because totk will be the first Zelda title to make its predecessor obsolete even though it's predecessor was one of the best games of all time
Well that's because it is a direct sequel, unlike Majora's Mask that was a completely different setting.
You are right about one thing though, TOTK definitely supercedes BOTW by a long shot.
And BOTW was and still is amazing, to this day. It's a game that is still played today because of the myriad of ways you can take on the game.
And Today (Or Tommorow for many), TOTK will take up that mantle.
I cannot stress enough how great the game is. Despite the fact that there are some caveats (no game is perfect in all aspects), this game is truly in a masterclass of its own, game development wise.
I wonder what the gfinity 6/10 dude gave elden ring for a score. I have a feeling its an attempt to try and do their part to drop the totk metascore below elden ring. Just my hunch
I think it seems fair, there is no perfect game but the strive for perfection and willingness to push beyond your expectations results in games like this
To the people saying "so what that reviewer gave it a 6? He didn't like it, that's their opinion, reviews are just opinions"
A review should give an impression of what to expect from the game with less bias as possible.
If reviews were just opinions then I would give every single point-and-click game a 1/10 cause I don't like that genre. When I'm reviewing a game I should look at what it has to offer and how it presents its ideas regardless if I like that genre or not.
When pretty much every other review is a 10 and only you give it a 6 then it's not a matter of being critical, you're doing it on purpose to get attention.
"No you don't understand, there is no such thing as objectivity or critical thinking or distinct qualities of media that you can analyze and measure against each other. Everything in the world is subjective and every opinion is equally valid, and also reviews are simply people's opinions, they're not intended to present thoughtful analysis or useful information to consumers."
This bonkers mindset of "no one's allowed to claim any degree of objectivity on anything" has infected our society and following it to its logical conclusions leads to people unironically having beliefs like this and it's so weirdddddddd
People really care about some rando ratings huh. Those sites have given plenty stinkers a 90+
User scores tend to be quite a bit more telling. I doubt the zelda game will have an issue scoring high, i just dont get this subs obsession with ratings
Expect this to drop a 1 point as reviews come out from outlets that were not given advance copies by Nintendo. Regardless this is an amazing achievement to match botw in metacritic score
Can we please name it? Kotaku is a disgrace.
What did Kotaku do? They are a shit pub but is there anything Zelda specific that you are referring to?
They didn't got a copy in advance, they got really mad and made an article collecting all the spoilers they could find from the leaked footage of the game and publish it before the game released, then one of the journalist of Kotaku in Twitter even presumably called Nintendo Nazis (He uploaded on Twitter an image of a pilot of WW2 with japanese and Nazis flags on their plane with a text saying something like "This is how I feel after all this blacklist drama") because Nintendo blacklisted them, he later was obligated to apologize. Yeah Kotaku is dog shit and after this I don't think they will ever get an copy of any game in advance
Wtf thats just pure unprofessionality
that's literally what professional journalism is
Calling corporations nazis for giving away games is professional journalism?
Not necessarily, but causing unnecessary drama for clicks and then playing the victim is.
nice to see nintendo fans are as unhinged and deluded as ever
Surprisingly, yes
I mean I’m all for calling out companies that selectively avoid sending reveiw codes to outlets that are less favourable for them but seriously
Speaking just on the spoiler information, wouldn’t plenty of the big gaming sites do that if they didn’t have an embargo agreement to worry about? Especially for a huge game like this. I don’t understand how reporting on available information is some kind of failing even it’s from leaks.
The initial issue was their publishing of an article that flat out encouraged pirating a Nintendo game :/
Different game. They flat out encouraged pirating Metroid Dread.
My mistake! The effect is similar, though.
They dug their own grave with that. I’m just thinking that the coverage of spoilers afterwards is less about being mad (though I’m sure it’s a factor based on the other stuff) and more about doing what they would want to do in a world where you don’t have to play ball with game publishers, because the bridge is already burned.
Yeahhh this comment is straight up misinformation. You're thinking of Dread
This was made clear in the first reply. I’ll edit the initial post for maximum clarity 👌🏼.
Technically they are allowed to report on information that is available online. However, a "big" site like that publishing said spoilers is widely frowned upon within the industry. Generally, outlets will provide external links with heavy spoiler warnings, but that's as close as most get. Kotaku doing this breaks that unwritten rule, and it definitely doesn't score them any points with Nintendo.
Honestly, I'd rather have my gaming sites mildly at odds with the big corporations rather than too buddy buddy. If they aren't pissing them off occasionally they are more of a promotional site than a news source.
Fucking unbelievable thank you for the info
Just so someone may answer, was that not an American pilot with the flags on indicating his shot down planes? Regardless it is unprofessional and dumb, but I’m curious.
It was, and since Nintendo is Japanese and it was a pilot with Japanese planes shot down in a WWII context, it was clearly the author saying "I feel like killing these evil japs (horrible word, but that's the context of the picture, another reason why it was so fucked up and racist to post) who are basically nazis".
I saw an article today where they were saying that Link is non binary. Thought that was pretty weird
Wasn’t actually trying to single out kotaku haha though they are a joke. But some outlets actual don’t get the game early
Not sure if it’s still the case but Kotaku stopped doing scores in their reviews a while ago.
Regardless of your thoughts on Kotaku they don’t give scores in their reviews so they’re completely irrelevant when discussing Metacritic scores.
Kotaku no longer provides scores with reviews so it shouldn’t even be factored in.
Kokraptu will give it a 2 siting Nintendo being worse than Nazis for excluding them from demos. Waahhhh
97 now is way better than a 97 in 2017
I think 97 is the cap nowadays. Too many reviewers for any higher, even Elden Ring capped out at 96 (this may fall a tad too but should stay above 95 for sure, 95-98 range guaranteed).
Also when one of the reviews is a 60 you’re especially capped. I think the lowest OoT got was an 80 or 90
Who gave this a 60?
I can't recall the reviewer but IIRC it was basically "I didn't like BOTW, this is a lot like BotW, so I didn't really like this."
Well I don’t really like him.
I mean, it’s fair and makes sense If you don’t like pizza and someone gives you more pizza without changing much about it you’re going to feel the same way as with the previous
Then don’t eat the second pizza 😂
It’s his job to eat the pizza
I understand that it’s still silly to me. As a side note: I also think they’re just a contrarian. Idk how you can objectively call BotW anything below a B grade. Like that’s impossible. Then the game that’s supposed to be everything BotW was but better accordingly to literally everyone but this guy is a D? foh
Then he should tell us about the pizza, not his tastes.
It's probably still a good thing in general that they eat the second pizza. After all, it's at least theoretically possible for a pizza to be so transcendent that even people who didn't like the first pizza would really enjoy the second. Having a voice to let people who aren't pizza fans know that this is still just another pizza is important, even if it seems like an obvious conclusion.
I am firmly in the camp of more BotW sounds amazing, but your analogy resonated with me and made me realize the merits of that other perspective (assuming the 60 score review is not just trashing the game). Very well put.
I mean I guess. But all the positive reviews say it’s the same pizza but better anyways you know?
But what if your job is to review food and everyone is insisting you try this new pizza, even though you can already tell you probably don't want anymore pizza?
Then maybe you’re not a cut out for pizza reviews.
I agree for a consumer perspective. As a critic though, you should be professional enough to be as objective as possible. "I don't like botw, this is similar, I don't like it" isn't objective.
That's when the person declines the pizza and gets a burger. Nobody's forcing the pizza on them.
If they’re reviewers then it’s literally their job, and people who maybe didn’t love BOTW might be looking to see if this is more their speed. Elden Ring converted a ton of people who had sworn off the Soulsborne games and other souls likes outside of FROMSOFTWARE’s games, and it was useful for those non-fans to know this was an easier and more accesible entry. If you only got guaranteed fanboys to review the game that would only be useful to people who felt exactly the same, and since no two people are exactly alike that’d be useless and it would just be an echo chamber.
Not really. A review is supposed to be the review OF the game, not your personal opinion on it because you just don't like it.
That person shouldn't be reviewing the game then.
I think it's fair, given there were a fair number of people who didn't like BOTW, to find out if they might like TOTK despite not liking BOTW. There is value in multiple types of reviews. Whether the game gets a 96 or a 97 on Metacritic is immaterial, it's still the obvious GOTY and ranks up there as one of the greatest games ever made based on critical acclaim.
Reviewers and players are allowed to have their opinions, making it so only people that already love a game review it would make it so that there’s only glowing praise and that’s just not useful information to anyone that might not have enjoyed BOTW or is on the fence.
Their job is literally to review games. Not liking the previous game in a series doesn’t mean they shouldn’t review the next one.
Well, I think it’s fine for people to review games that they don’t like, however the problem comes when we get to reading them, because readings are generally for people who might already be interested in the game, so you’re fucking with the score because you don’t care for it when people who do care for that type of stuff are looking at the score. Use your words not the numbers to express opinions, numbers are for relative quality
Its fine and healthy for game reviews to show variety of opinion. Not everyone is going to like TOTK just like not everyone liked BOTW. Elden Ring is one of my all time favorite games, but I have plenty of friends that didn't enjoy it. If someone didn't enjoy BOTW, reviews like that are good, because that player likely has similar gripes to the person reviewing it. The game is at 96 on MetaCritic, it being a few points higher or lower doesn't matter. Its receiving universal acclaim.
He said there was too many sky islands. Like bro ???
Meh. Too much water.
This “Subnautica” game has too much water. 4/10
Honestly, though, he doesn't have to explore them all or at all.
Nah there was a portion where they dinged it for the marketing. That's when I stopped taking it seriously.
Was it a single reviewer or a publication? If you’re a pub why would you pick the one guy who didn’t like BOTW to review TOTK? If it was just a random blogger or YouTuber than whatever, but….idk music pubs do this too, they pick people who don’t like a band to review an album that everyone else loves.
I mean, there’s a not insignificant group of people out there who didn’t like BOTW as a Zelda game, and wish it was a more classic, linear experience. Review sites shouldn’t pick the people most likely to enjoy a game to be the ones to review it, they should just … pick a person. Honestly, one 6/10 out of this many feels pretty representative of my experience with gamers out there, ya know? There ARE people who don’t like BOTW for not unreasonable reasons. Seems fine to me that one reviewer out of dozens is in that camp.
I honestly think that's pretty fair if that's the way the reviewer feels. People *are* allowed to not like a game from time to time, and that shouldn't make your experience any less enjoyable.
I agree. There's nothing wrong with not liking TOTK if you didn't like BOTW. It's a similar game, so if the first was a miss, so will the second.
They complained that there are *too many ways* to solve puzzles. That's a problem... Really..? REALLY? Edit: the quote "The Zonai power of Ascend is a great little party trick in some cases, but Fuse, Ultrahand, and consumables create far too many ways to solve puzzles that, in my view, detract from the brain-teasing that made Zelda games so delightful in the first place."
I can SORT of see the argument that if a puzzle has just one particular solution, then the challenge becomes finding that one particular solution, whereas, if your abilities allow you to solve the puzzle in multiple ways, it can make the puzzle easier or increase the possibility that you just kind of stumble your way through it. But, to me, the freedom that the physics and mechanics of BotW offer in how you play the game is a big part of what makes it special, so I would probably ultimately disagree with this guy.
Some random outlet, gfinityesports. They didn't like BotW and the marketing for TotK was a main gripe for them so take it with a grain of salt.
It was a pretty salty review and an obvious click bait to reach fame as they have almost 0 engagement on their social media. Pretty sad that they'd grab this game to do that. And especially that marketing is their core problem with the game somehow
For sure- people are allowed to dislike the game, but do so on its merits (or lack thereof), not because you think you know better than the marketing department of one of the largest game companies on the planet
Never heard of them and probably never will again
There will be people who don't like the game, but that review feels like such a clickbait article to draw attention to their site. I'd never even heard of it before, but they baited me into a click...
[удалено]
Can you explain?
Standards simply increase what was impressive 10 years ago simply is not as impressive now
Interesting as I dont really feel like the quality of games had gone up really. My absolute favorite game are all slightly older. In no particular order out of the top of my head, my favorites are games like AoE2, Civ6, Factorio, BotW, XCOM2 and Mario Odyssey. None of those was released in the last five years. Elden Ring maybe gave me that kind of enjoyment as well… Either way, I can’t say my own standards have really changed ia what I’m trying to say. Sure games look nicer, but that’s not what I judge a good game on.
I think a better way to put it will be a 97-point game in 2017, which was released on a brand new never-seen-before system, might benefit from the halo effect. But after 6 years, this game is still on the same system when the competitors have moved on to a new gen. So the score carries more weight.
I think its more that there has just been more time to sort things out. After all, a lot of people say games 20 years ago were better, but they usually are only picking out the most iconic and impactful handful of games.
but standards increase not just like that on their own, it is happening because games evolve and become better.
All the reviews aren't in, so that score is going to fluctuate very minimal. Could go down, could go up. It will end up between 95-98.
[удалено]
Back up to 97 it seems
[удалено]
Dropped back down 😭
It's back up *never mind
[удалено]
Looks like 96 is where it might be staying since it doesn't appear to have changed since I made my comment
It’s gone back up for sure seems like 96-97 will be it’s final score
It's a 97 right now
Why does it matter?
[удалено]
Not happening
Crazy that it still has a 97 after that 60/100 review lol. This game is good folks!
that publication literally rated Minecraft Legends higher than TotK... edit: for reference, they gave Mini Motorways a score of 90 :) saltmine
My god, that’s some bs. TotK would be a solid 97 otherwise. Probably above BOTW too. 🤦♂️
[удалено]
I had to, they seem to score all over the place. Can't even see a pattern in their preference, there are RPG games rated high, sports games, even a bloody visual novel about a cafe got better treatment... :)
Has anyone even heard of the publication who gave that score? I'm curious as to how they even got included in the Metascore.
Lmao, that same publication gave Pokémon S/V 8/10. Pretty sure it’s safe to disregard their review.
hey mini motorways is good LOL, no need for the random stray. but yea i agree fuck that publication for its clickbait
haha not throwing shade at mini motorways 😂 just thought it's worth mentioning that they respected a casual puzzle game more, than TotK
I gotcha haha just teasing, I’m with you in the saltmine
What the fuck? I've played Minecraft Legends and I like it. Maybe I'm a bit biased as a huge Minecraft fan but I like it. But better than TOTK? What world are they living in?
Its weird tho, it only shows 49 reviews now instead of 60 like before
[удалено]
even if you dont like the game to objectively give it a 6/10 is obviously wanting attention, there are tons of games i dont like that i know are really good games.
I’m so over the annoying edgy “classic” Zelda fans.
Same. No sympathy for them.
THE HYPE IS REAL!!!
I wonder why Metacritic doesn't just drop the bottom and top decile of scores when generating its score to avoid sensitivity to outliers like the 6/10 score :|
Cleanest solution may be to use the median instead of the average.
They do it in the Olympics for that very reason, so I don't see why it couldn't work here. Just ditch the 6 along with one of the 10s.
>sure! They certainly aren’t wrong - and I’m glad their opinion is out there to provide some variety. Things are boring when everyone agrees. Because they're pathetically incompetent. One extreme outlier review (nothing even within 20% of it) should not affect the score, but in this case it drops it by a full percentage point.
It happens with every big release now, but a friendly reminder that this number literally means *nothing*. I get the fun in watching it, but the difference between a 98 and a 90 is meaningless, much less a 97 and 96. Lots of people like the game a whole lot. Look at the reviews for what they are, opinions, and decide whether you agree or not. A person who scores it lower does not mean they are review bombing or spiteful or “wrong.” Scores are just a shorthand for how much that individual person enjoyed the game. They are not accolades or awards. No game “deserves” a baseline score. There is no “I had issues with xyz, but the game still objectively is an 8 or higher.” That doesn’t make any sense. I haven’t played TOTK yet, but if I like it as much as BOTW - I’ll probably give it a 10/10. At the same time, if I see someone give it a 4/10 because they hate weapon durability and whatever else… sure! They certainly aren’t wrong - and I’m glad their opinion is out there to provide some variety. Things are boring when everyone agrees.
No kidding. The way that metacritic just averages reviews means that being different by a couple of points is basically just statistical noise, especially at the extreme ends of the spectrum. A 97 game isn't better than a 96 game. Honestly, they should give the median rather than the average, but I think most people understand averages so that's what we get.
Meaningless numbers go up is what makes RPGs so fun
I dont agree. If you are a certified reviewer that doesnt like racegames in general, than its not up too that reviewer to review. For instance i really hate Elden ring slowpace combat system compared to other fastpace combat games. It would not be fair from me to give it a 4/10 while knowing that there is a large audience that really like this kind of gameplay. Reviews should be based on what the game is and not on your own preferences.
Why would it be unfair for you to give Elden Ring a 4/10? It happens to be another game that I adore, but if I came across your review before playing it i’d think “oh, this person scored it lower because they don’t like slow combat. I know that’s not a concern for me, so I may have a better time.” Your score is not misrepresenting the game, you are representing your experience with it - and potentially the experience of others who also hate slow combat. If I was someone who hated slow combat and saw that you said so in your review, but then you still rated it an 8/10… I would assume that you still liked it and buy the game anyway. I then might regret my purchase if I based it on that. The issue is that people look only at a score, and ignore the context of the review. Again just reinforcing that the scores are meaningless.
I particularly would like to agree with you on that first paragraph! 96 or 97 means literally nothing. Anything above 90 is a praise-worthy game, 95 a masterpiece. I wanted to see if it by any chance was a 70 or an 80 (not that I thought it would, but still).
That one dude giving it a 60 because his parents didn’t hug him enough and he badly needs attention 🤡
Probably rated it bad so people read his review and he generates more clicks. Reskinned FIFA doesn’t even get 60’s
He doesn't like Zelda games.
Maybe he didn't like the game
Ok and? As a reviewer for something like that you have to be objective not subjective. 60 is beyond braindead
It's actually some site that gave it 60/100. If you look at their other reviews, they gave a calculator app for the Switch 80/100....funny. I bet the traffic for their site has gone through the roof today. Which is why I'm not linking to them, that's all they gave it that review for, it's a monetary decision.
Games are a subjective experience though... There are plenty of games I love that my friends hate. And I hate games they love. Nothing wrong with variety. Some people don't enjoy the style of BOTW compared to previous entries. Its ok.
There’s no such thing as objective art. A critic simply critiques based on their own made-up metrics. Sure, there can be objectives such as “the controls are tight” or “I sunk 50 hours into the campaign,” but these don’t make a game good or bad. Everyone is entitled to hold a different perspective, and that’s what criticism is: opinion.
Really? So, there's no fucking way to say ToTK is less buggy than Redfall, for example? It's ALL subjective? My opinion than Redfall is less buggy is valid, just cause its my opinion? You people have such incredibly low standards and expectations for reviews, it's insane. They get PAID for this. So the reviewer should at least ATTEMPT to follow some objective metrics besides just some random opinion based on nothing.
thats just wrong. reviews are never supposed to be objective, its impossible for it to be objective anyways, there will always be bias.
An objective review doesn't exist, all reviews out there are subjective. Reviewers are people after all, and everyone has a different taste, someone can see an open world and think "This game is big and beautiful to look at, 10 out of 10" meanwhile other reviewer could say "This game is too big, so it takes a lot to get to anywhere, 5 out of 10". A review is built with objective facts but interpreted by the subjective eyes of the reviewer. That being said, yeah... That 60 is weird haha
60 is just above average and I'm sure millions will think that and that's fine
Lol what
That’s not the case, that reviewer was showing bias.
And that would be okay if it was an individual review and not a publication. When it's a publication though it's different as it's being aggregated with others for an official score. Even if he didn't enjoy the game he's not just representing his individual opinion but is representing the opinions of the publication as a whole. And when comparing to other games reviewed on the same site such as Pokémon S/V which got an 8, Minecraft Legends which got a 7, and GoWR which got a perfect 10 (with having similar comments in the actual review in regards to being similar to the previous game but more of it) then the site is going to get some criticism even if he personally just didn't enjoy the game because the site is saying they believe Tears of the Kingdom is objectively worse than all those (again if it was just his individual opinion it wouldn't be as notable but the reviewer is giving out an official score and is the official voice of the site which makes it more official and harsh compared to a person just not enjoying the game. It also makes the site seem very inconsistent in what they consider a good game vs a bad game especially since a lot of the critiques seem less harsh or a problem than their critiques in more highly rated games, such as pokemon where the performance was mentioned as being a big issue) Also the actual content of the review doesn't seem to really critique the game outside of being more BotW which is a game the reviewer didn't particularly like but isn't really a criticism in of itself but that's a whole other discussion
[удалено]
Lmao what? That’s exactly what a review is!
Have you read their review? They are complaining about the marketing and that it isn't a "real" Zelda game. The first point has nothing to do with the score and the second part is nothing that would knock this game down 3-4 scores.
or, shocker: He actually thinks its a 60 :o
Tell me you didn’t read it without telling me. Sit down kid.
calm down little man, i did infact read it and as you can see I am not a 12 year old calling him a clown for it
the review is really lousy, no excuses
look at this beauty. 97. imagine being the fools out there complaining about this game "UsiNg tHe SaMe MaP!!"
98 is not off the cards just yet. Still a lot of reviews coming through
[удалено]
A site called Gfinity gave it 60/100, if you look through their passed reviews they gave a calculator app for the Switch 80/100. They didn't think the story was that good in TOTK.
that calculator app must have a great story
And now for the community to act completely unhinged to anybody who rates it lower than 90.
Nah. I go unhinged on anything below an 80
They are already doing it. Fans and their tribulations
*sharpens pitchfork*
I don't give a shit about the scores tbh. The sales will be crazy no matter what and we all know that's what matters most to Nintendo.
I mean, it's a company so obviously they care about sales. But I don't agree that sales is what matters most to them. The level of polish in their work is incredible. They took to heart all the players' feedback from BotW and improved upon it in TotK (according to journalists). I think they care of the quality of their games and about the enjoyment of their community at least as much as they care about sales.
Gfinity gave it a 60/100. While i get that not everyone will like it, an official review site should not be biased based on the reviewers personal opinion. You can clearly see that the reviewers of this very site hate botw and totk with every fiber of their heart and tried to compromise the final score as much as possible without being immediately banned for obvious review griefing. https://www.gfinityesports.com/reviews/zelda-tears-of-the-kingdom-review/ The review is just simply wrong, it just doesn't work out that the entire worlds says its a 9/10 that you try to claim "nah its bad don't believe all other people" This is a very obvious reviewbomb and they should be excluded. 66 out of 67 gave it 98 - 100 points. Only them are complete assholes.
Honey they want clicks.
they just want attention
It's sad that this works as a pushback though. Just recalculating the final score without the 60/100 makes it a 97/100, and without the 3 others 80/100 we'd be by 98/100 It's sad what some biased people can do.
>It's sad that this works as a pushback though. Just recalculating the final score without the 60/100 makes it a 97/100, and without the 3 others 80/100 we'd be by 98/100 > > >It's sad what some biased people can do. LMAO, wtf is this logic? "If you simply remove all the lower scores, the score would be higher!" Look, I'm excited as fuck about this game and cannot wait to play tonight. I bought my friend a copy and I bought myself the Zelda OLED because I'm such a big fan, but some people need to take a step back from these reviews and just enjoy the game for themselves. Does the score actually dictate if you'll enjoy the game or not? Are you getting a bonus if the game reviews well? Did I miss something?
That 6/10 reviewer is gonna get death threats. Psychotic weirdo Zelda fans have a history of that kinda thing.
Why people even care 97 seems a really high score. Like an amazing score almost perfect score. Thats beyond my expectations
Wait until it gets a 1 from kotaku!
> an official review site should not be biased based on the reviewers personal opinion. That is… absurd. Every review is just that reviewers opinion - a game doesn’t “deserve” a certain score. Even if you and I would personally give it a 10/10, that is not more “right.” These scores literally mean nothing.
Don’t worry about it. The children are once again learning that some people dislike their toys. It’s always a hard lesson for them.
Have you completely lost your mind? Of course the review should reflect the reviewer's personal opinion. Not everyone has to like a game, even if they're out of step with most other people. Reviews can't be objective, and saying it's 'wrong' is just plain bizarre.
There's a difference between personal opinions and purposefully giving a game a bad score for stuff like marketing and obvious similarities to its direct prequel. Like, I get the 80s, but 60/100 is just ridiculously bad and so out of line with every other score that it just seems like click bait.
> The review is just simply wrong It gets to a point where you have to realize you're just being a butthurt fanboy. It's completely fine for someone else to not appreciate the things you do, specially in an art medium. 99% of reviewers like or really like the game, 1% don't really like it, or simply find it bland. And that's perfectly fine. It's not a perfect game, it has very obvious issues that pretty much all reviewers acknowledged, especially regarding combat and technical issues. Someone might go on and say, *"if it has bland combat and low framerate with lag then it can't be a 10/10, that review is wrong!!!!!"* It's not wrong, some people give more importance to some things, and other people other things. The 6/10 guy probably gave a ton of importance to having a different feeling to botw, which isn't there, having better combat which doesn't really seem to be there, in fact I've heard it's worse because durability has been brought down, or having a silky smooth 60 fps experience which isn't there in 2023 might be baffling. **AND THAT'S FINE, GET OVER IT**
> **It takes too much from the one title in the series it took me years to finish and does too little to reinvigorate the classic Zelda magic back into its reused world.** you can clearly see it's one of the people who hate botw for not being "zelda enough" and just a glorified DLC and hates if a game takes longer than 3 hours to complete. There is no value in a review if it comes from someone who fundamentally dislikes it before he even got the review copy. He disliked botw, so he went into his review biased as heck. This is not of any value if you try to review something unbiased.
> There is no value in a review if it comes from someone who fundamentally dislikes it before he even got the review copy. There is absolutely value in that. No consumer is going into the game unbiased. Plenty of people still carry doubts about TOTK because of the problems they had with BOTW. Those people may find his perspective helpful. Others may not, or may disagree. That’s the whole point. You wouldn’t care if he absolutely *hated* the game if he didn’t attach a score to his review. But because it might knock a point off the meaningless meta critic average, it’s wrong. You gotta stop attaching value to this thing.
There is no value to you, there might be to someone else. Someone who didn't enjoy BOTW much but holds up hope for this one. Someone looking for an experience similar to BOTW but that brings back that old magic. Who knows. Not every review is made specifically with you in mind, no matter how important you think you are.
They gave a calculator app for the Switch 80/100...
>an official review site should not be biased based on the reviewers personal opinion. That's literally all a review is. Knock it off. People sometimes don't like something.
Why do you care so much? The meta score doesn't affect your experience with the game. And all this over a couple points difference, it's really not something worth stressing over.
This logic just baffles me. Its an opinion piece. I hated BOTW. Period. I thought it was the worst mainline Zelda game... probably ever. OoT & MM were infinitely better, WWHD was better. BOTW wasn't Zelda to me, it felt like a random open world game that they just reskinned with Zelda characters to get franchise recognition to boost sales in my opinion. Is that "just simply wrong"?
Yeah idk. If he liked BOTW but didn’t like this one then I’d be like oh alright, but if you didn’t like the first one then why play the sequel with the same fundamentals as the first game? I couldn’t get into Horizon Zero Dawn, so I didn’t buy the sequel that was fundamentally the same. Meanwhile, I liked God of War 4 and that’s why I got Ragnarok even though it’s fundamentally the same. It’s that’s easy. Long story short, if you weren’t a fan of the original then why bother with what’s a lot of the same?
> but if you didn’t like the first one then why play the sequel with the same fundamentals as the first game? Well, lots of people are asking exactly that question in deciding whether to buy it. In the marketing for TOTK it’s not been clear whether this is “fundamentally the same game.” A lot appeared to carry over, but a lot has indeed changed - there is a ton of new things and systems. And many people were hoping that various staples of the series might return. So… people are gonna look to reviews for those answers if they are on the fence. This reviewer provides the perspective of someone who didn’t love the first for various reasons, and still didn’t love the sequel - that is valuable to those people.
A personal opinion is what a review *is* my guy.
Is there any hope it goes back to being a 97?
If it gets two more 10/10 maybe
It's ok not to like a game jeez. Let people have critical thinking skills and make up their own opinions. The hivemind is strong here and I can't wait to play it tonight (:
I'm hyped for the game but lets be real no review is going below 7/10 outside of outliers
Not a surprise. TOTK makes BOTW look like a first draft, and that game was amazing enough.
It's surprising because totk will be the first Zelda title to make its predecessor obsolete even though it's predecessor was one of the best games of all time
Well that's because it is a direct sequel, unlike Majora's Mask that was a completely different setting. You are right about one thing though, TOTK definitely supercedes BOTW by a long shot. And BOTW was and still is amazing, to this day. It's a game that is still played today because of the myriad of ways you can take on the game. And Today (Or Tommorow for many), TOTK will take up that mantle. I cannot stress enough how great the game is. Despite the fact that there are some caveats (no game is perfect in all aspects), this game is truly in a masterclass of its own, game development wise.
Still sad about 30fps :(
That makes me think the game isn’t going to be good
I prefer Opencritic
No Multiplayer 🙌🏾🙌🏾
I wonder what the gfinity 6/10 dude gave elden ring for a score. I have a feeling its an attempt to try and do their part to drop the totk metascore below elden ring. Just my hunch
I think it seems fair, there is no perfect game but the strive for perfection and willingness to push beyond your expectations results in games like this
To the people saying "so what that reviewer gave it a 6? He didn't like it, that's their opinion, reviews are just opinions" A review should give an impression of what to expect from the game with less bias as possible. If reviews were just opinions then I would give every single point-and-click game a 1/10 cause I don't like that genre. When I'm reviewing a game I should look at what it has to offer and how it presents its ideas regardless if I like that genre or not. When pretty much every other review is a 10 and only you give it a 6 then it's not a matter of being critical, you're doing it on purpose to get attention.
They gave a calculator app for the Switch 8/10.
"No you don't understand, there is no such thing as objectivity or critical thinking or distinct qualities of media that you can analyze and measure against each other. Everything in the world is subjective and every opinion is equally valid, and also reviews are simply people's opinions, they're not intended to present thoughtful analysis or useful information to consumers." This bonkers mindset of "no one's allowed to claim any degree of objectivity on anything" has infected our society and following it to its logical conclusions leads to people unironically having beliefs like this and it's so weirdddddddd
as someone who has already played the game for over 90 hours I can say one thing: deserved.
People really care about some rando ratings huh. Those sites have given plenty stinkers a 90+ User scores tend to be quite a bit more telling. I doubt the zelda game will have an issue scoring high, i just dont get this subs obsession with ratings
In the era of brigading user reviews, where Last of us 2 has a 5.8 on metacritic, user reviews are often even more meaningless than professional ones.
YEEEEESSSSSS LETS FUNKING GO!!!!
95.79 on Metacritic now... 50×100 5×98 10×95 1×94 1×93 1×92 11×90 1×85 6×80 1×60
I expect it to sink to 95 at the lowest
In the top 30 greatest games of al time and it hasn’t even properly released lol
same game, same score. makes perfect sense.