PlayStation 3

P00DGE posted...

But again, that is all subjective. You can't a rating on that stuff. Hence my original point. I gave reasons beyond Nostalgia" and "it did it first" for why I thought the game did things better then the later games. Those things are my criteria for what makes a game objectively good. I like simple stories, they are more compelling to me than complex ones with alot going on. I found just about all the character in TP annoying. They looked like they had the mumps and acted like idiots. Especially the children, I hated every one of them. And all the character stuff that happened in Kakariko just felt like it dragged for me. I prefer the simple interactions of Sheik and Link to drawn out meetings and annoying deformed characters.

The point is, even what could be perceived as "objective criteria" is still subjective.

Even if the interpretation of the arguments is somewhat subjective, if you can at least express the difference between the games in a direct manner you're getting somewhere. At that point the question simply becomes which type of reasoning do people find convincing.

For example, I think the Adult Link portion of OoT is pretty indefensible. You can say "well, more story progression or variety would have just got in the way" but I don't think many people would believe that to be the case, particularly when games like Twilight Princess and Okami show that it generally doesn't.

awsdfrgty posted...

only 2 guys said a thing about world of warcraft after 34 pages? lol that is way too overrated crap of all time

fixed