After so many disappointments and lies from the zelda team, are you excited for

#131FFXIgaiaknightPosted 7/2/2013 7:53:01 PM
all i really want out of the next zelda game is a hyrule as big as in TP but a hell of alot more fleshed out with tons of stuff to do.
---
3DS FC: 4124-5007-1536
NNI: Gaiaknight
#132sonicfanaticjtbPosted 7/2/2013 9:17:00 PM
DGM09 posted...


I believe you're confused.
Regardless, the point is that you play a game in a given point in time. In that given point in time, you have experienced whatever you have played previously and have standards based around those experiences. The game won't be as good technically because you have played better already. Your definitions of good and bad only exist because you have a basis for what is good and for what is bad. As such, comparisons are inevitable.
OoT for 3DS still presents to you the same gameplay (with very few differences) that it gave players years ago. That is to say that you have undoubtedly played games (even in the same series) that feature more refined game engines. I will omit the rest since it's deducible.

This question is pointless in your attempt to somehow turn this around, because it has a very simple answer.
The N64 game was rated at the time using what were the industry standards back then. The standards nowadays aren't the same as they were. Even though the remake brought it up to date in some aspects (visuals, audio and a very minimal gameplay difference), the game's engine's limits and how the game works is still very much the same. These aspects have been done better by now. While the 3DS would obviously be the recommended version (quite frankly mostly due to resolution and framerate), that does not mean you should just grab the original's score and up it just because it changed a few technical aspects. What would be truly biased would be to take the original score and alter it from there.
Incidentally, it should be noted that in reviews it is usually mentioned that that version of the game should be the one to be played (if it was well-done) by those that never played it and that it should be taken more into account by the same group.


I don't care if there's games that do Action/Adventure better than OoT these days. I don't care if every 3d Zelda released since OoT (except MM, which I could not personally get into. A personal problem of mine. It ain't no fault of MM's ) has done Zelda better than OoT. I ain't comparing OoT to any of 'em. I'm comparing OoT to OoT.

'Kay. Now, let's say instead of asking someone which version I should get, I decide to look up it's review scores. I see that the original has a very high score but end up seeing that the remake has a lower score. Welp, I guess that the 3ds version isn't that great of a remake. Now, this problem could be fix'd by reading the reviews itself. Maybe. But, if I'm just looking for a quick idea of how good or bad a game is, well... the score for the 3ds version doesn't reflect that OoT hasn't aged as well as some would like you to believe. It reflects it's quality as a remake when compared to the original That's where my problem comes in when it comes to giving a fairly competent remake of OoT a lower rating than the original, when it's technically the superior version. If OoT deserves a 9/10, then to me, the remake deserves at least a 9/10 as well.

I have similar feelings when it comes to reviewing ports of games. Unless it's a bad port, the game hasn't changed. so, it should get whatever rating it got when it was first released. If it was a good game back then, then chances are, it's still a rather enjoyable game now. Meanwhile, if it sucked when it was first released, then it still sucks now.
---
Krystal and Phoenix Wright for Smash 4!
... Please, Sakurai?
#133chaosflame108Posted 7/2/2013 9:19:21 PM
lol thundercat hasn't even responded.

Successful Troll is successful.
---
I AM SATANAIL. HE WHO SHALL SET RIGHT THIS DISTORTED UNIVERSE!!!
#134DGM09Posted 7/2/2013 9:52:43 PM(edited)
I don't care if there's games that do Action/Adventure better than OoT these days. I don't care if every 3d Zelda released since OoT (except MM, which I could not personally get into. A personal problem of mine. It ain't no fault of MM's ) has done Zelda better than OoT. I ain't comparing OoT to any of 'em. I'm comparing OoT to OoT.

Regardless, the point is that you play a game in a given point in time. In that given point in time, you have experienced whatever you have played previously and have standards based around those experiences.[...]Your definitions of good and bad only exist because you have a basis for what is good and for what is bad.

You have to evaluate a game taking into account when it is released because there are other games which could have done the same better for the same price or cheaper. You aren't going to evaluate a remake higher just because the original did it first and this one happens to have a few fixed problems.

Now, this problem could be fix'd by reading the reviews itself. Maybe. But, if I'm just looking for a quick idea of how good or bad a game is, well... the score for the 3ds version doesn't reflect that OoT hasn't aged as well as some would like you to believe. It reflects it's quality as a remake when compared to the original

Because the reviews reflect the game vs the other games available today which are offered at the same price or cheaper.

This is really not difficult to understand. It's like you people are incapable of logic. Jesus.

Edit:
If it was a good game back then, then chances are, it's still a rather enjoyable game now.

I didn't even read this. I don't think you can ever understand if you say this. I'm just wasting my time.

Allow me to elaborate even further. Do you not even realize that this way of thinking ruins any sort of rating scale there is?
And what good would it be for a game to at least be rated as highly as the original? Can you still tell it apart from the score if the original game is a 10/10 or if the updates do not make it go from a 9/10 to a 10/10? Is it a 11/10? Your whole argument is baseless. And how is a system that functions by giving the older game's remake so much value not biased towards them?
---
Bang.
#135squidgy617Posted 7/2/2013 9:43:06 PM(edited)
As someone who started with ALttP, I think people are way too obsessed with that game.

And personally, I very much enjoyed SS. People just hate on it because its new. I found it extremely entertaining.

Actually, I've pretty much enjoyed every 3D Zelda (haven't played the DS ones though).
#136Dannyson97Posted 7/2/2013 10:00:29 PM
I think it's lie's and more misconceptions, that said I've loved every Zelda I've played. From Skyward Sword to the very first Zelda. So yes I am looking forward to the next Zelda.
#137sonicfanaticjtbPosted 7/3/2013 1:54:59 AM
DGM09 posted...

Regardless, the point is that you play a game in a given point in time. In that given point in time, you have experienced whatever you have played previously and have standards based around those experiences.[...]Your definitions of good and bad only exist because you have a basis for what is good and for what is bad.

You have to evaluate a game taking into account when it is released because there are other games which could have done the same better for the same price or cheaper. You aren't going to evaluate a remake higher just because the original did it first and this one happens to have a few fixed problems.


Because the reviews reflect the game vs the other games available today which are offered at the same price or cheaper.

This is really not difficult to understand. It's like you people are incapable of logic. Jesus.

Edit:

I didn't even read this. I don't think you can ever understand if you say this. I'm just wasting my time.

Allow me to elaborate even further. Do you not even realize that this way of thinking ruins any sort of rating scale there is?
And what good would it be for a game to at least be rated as highly as the original? Can you still tell it apart from the score if the original game is a 10/10 or if the updates do not make it go from a 9/10 to a 10/10? Is it a 11/10? Your whole argument is baseless. And how is a system that functions by giving the older game's remake so much value not biased towards them?


For the love of... Could ya stop bringing up the possibility that other games are better then OoT? It's completely irrelevant. I dunno 'bout you, but I'm comparing OoT to OoT. Not OoT to a bunch of currently faceless games. If this were a discussion comparing OoT to Zelda's that came before and after it, I'd probably agree with the 3ds' rating. The thing that you seem to be unable to understand whatsoever is that I disagree with the discrepancy between OoT and OoT 3ds. If OoT gets a 9/10, then OoT 3ds should at least get a 9/10 as well. They're both the same game, only OoT 3ds is slightly better. Why is that so hard to understand? Why are you so stuck on the possibility that there are other games that could be better? I mean, shoot... If a game's given a 10/10.... That doesn't mean that it's the bestest game ever. Just that it's really, really freaking good. It's entirely possible that a game that's given a 10/10 could be worse then another game that was given a 10/10. So, can we stop with the irrelevant bullcrap already? Please?

If the older game's remake is better than the original, then it's better. Simple as that. Honestly, if you're worried 'bout bias, then I hope to god that you stay completely away from any kind of review since no matter how professional you try to be, it's impossible to not have some form of bias.
---
Krystal and Phoenix Wright for Smash 4!
... Please, Sakurai?
#138T3H_1337_N1NJ4Posted 7/3/2013 7:29:27 AM(edited)
sonicfanaticjtb posted...
If OoT gets a 9/10, then OoT 3ds should at least get a 9/10 as well. They're both the same game, only OoT 3ds is slightly better.


They might both be the same game, but they're not released in the same world. One released years ago when there were very different standards. And you know how you rate something? By comparing it with the CURRENT standards. Shocking, I know.
---
To err is human, but to really screw things up you need a computer!
http://userstyles.org/styles/88555/gamefaqs-v13-revamp V13 Userstyle for a better site look
#139DGM09Posted 7/3/2013 7:53:02 AM
The thing that you seem to be unable to understand whatsoever is that I disagree with the discrepancy between OoT and OoT 3ds

Do you honestly think I do not understand what you have been saying the entire time, as simple as it is? It just destroys any rating scale you could possibly have and is biased versus current games at the time of the review. You are eternally giving remakes of the original game a rating bonus just because the original came out first.

Not OoT to a bunch of currently faceless games.

It reflects it's quality as a remake when compared to the original

It doesn't for everyone else in the world that understands a work is reviewed at a given point in time with standards from that point in time.

If OoT gets a 9/10, then OoT 3ds should at least get a 9/10 as well. They're both the same game, only OoT 3ds is slightly better. Why is that so hard to understand?

OoT is generally rated as 10/10, if the remake gets a 10/10, as well, and it's better, then this would be unfair because it does not represent the superior quality of the remake, either. I only brought this scenario up because of your own words:
'Kay. Now, let's say instead of asking someone which version I should get, I decide to look up it's review scores.
This ends up not reflecting the remake's quality either. What good is it that it gets the same score as the original? It's still deceiving versus the original game. You still do not know if it's worse or better, but brought up to par score-wise with a few improvements.

It's entirely possible that a game that's given a 10/10 could be worse then another game that was given a 10/10.

That's not even the point I was trying to make.

Honestly, if you're worried 'bout bias, then I hope to god that you stay completely away from any kind of review since no matter how professional you try to be, it's impossible to not have some form of bias.

I'm not worried about bias and this is a pointless remark. The fact is that the system you propose brings additional bias to the equation. Whether someone is biased in a review or not for whatever reasons it may be is completely irrelevant to this.

Your inability to understand such basic concepts comes from this simple statement you made before:
I have similar feelings when it comes to reviewing ports of games. Unless it's a bad port, the game hasn't changed. so, it should get whatever rating it got when it was first released. If it was a good game back then, then chances are, it's still a rather enjoyable game now. Meanwhile, if it sucked when it was first released, then it still sucks now.

Many games become unplayable or less enjoyable because you have played better already. You cannot play the port with the same feelings/expectations/whatever. And it's funny that you should link this with enjoyment in this case, because your enjoyment is influenced by your current situation, not your situation from the past. You may not enjoy it as much because you've played games with much better gameplay meanwhile or with better graphics or with shorter loadings or the sound quality is severely outdated and so on.
You are rejecting enjoyment based on faceless games regarding remakes the entire time, but then promptly use it to defend your point regarding ports. Ports can also feature improvements, even though they are not remakes. So they are a valid comparison. It's interesting that you unconsciously realize ports have to be evaluated taking into account all those faceless games.
---
Bang.