I will make sure not to say that since it's not from your account...

I payed good dblns to use that name... and anyway, I could have been an ass and not posted it at all, but I did, so get yon your knees and thank me ;)

One you paid good dblns for a year, which has already expired.
2)Even if you didn't post it, I could still read it, I mean it's not like I don't have access to Insider
3)You will bow down before the ALmighty Penguin.

I cant be mad at a 9.6

I thought Majoras Mask was overrated, only time will tell if I agree with the 9.6 But 9.6 is still a great score...I dont know how you can say a 9.6 hurts Zelda's track record.

I dunno how a game gets such a good score with so many downsides :unsure: The game is too easy... thats a bad thing.. ontop of that its not long enough and the reason its even as long as it is, is because the fetch quests could add like 2 hours to it.. and the part of OoT i like most was the dungeons and there isnt even that many of them..

I dunno but im actually pretty worried about this game now... I was hoping for it to be a 40 hour game filled with dungeons and fun quests... not tedious fetch quests... thats not fun....

Agreed. Matt doesn't seem to emphasize the problems enough.

dramatization:

Hugo's Giant Adventure is an AMAZING game...blah, blah, blah...another great addition to the Hugo series...blah, blahdownsides include horrible framerate, tedious gameplay and an impossible learning curve...but pay no attention to the small print...I mean, who does?

/dramatization

I like a game that is challenging (best idea would be to give the user an option of easy, normal and hard) and I like a game that never bores me. Unfortunately those games aren't very common, and in WW's case it may not be that bad...but a 9.6 is damned near perfection...I'm thinking that his overall score was a bit generous if anything

I need me this game. Is it going to sell out u think (on launch) ?

It 'could'. It's already received over 600,000 preorders.

Its all about the content, not the score. Base your opinions on their compliments and complaints. Number are much more debateable and variated then what they actually say about a game.

Babbage's said I only have two days to get my game after Tuesday. Usually they give me a week...


*shrugs and walks away*

But wait a minute...weren't you the one who just told all the people arguing about the score to not judge it before you play?...Here you are saying the score is a bit generous, while you haven't played it either...And you advocate that's all about opinion...He gave it a 9.6, no matter what negatives he said about it, obviously he didn't think it was enough to take away from a fantastic score. Again we're arguing about one guy's opinion of a game, which is a point I believe you made in your "Controlled Chaos" thread...So you're being hypocritical...anyway.

You've got the game so soon?

You shouldn't be questioning all the reviewers who actually played the game. Just becuase they mention it's 20+ hours and less dungeons, doesn't mean you should regret the reviewers. Play the game and you can decide that for yourself.

The argument that a score of 9.6 compared to other Zeldas points to a significant flaw in WW does not logically take into account that fact that the reviews of the each Zelda games have been given by different reviewers.

This fact alone should prove 2 things: any attempt at a comparison between the new Zelda and the old ones should take into consideration the thought that consistency in the review scores is not to be assumed in the first place; and secondly, since it is inferred from the first premise that personal biases are the greatness and the downfall of these so-called reviews, any attempt at measuring the greatness of the game by a rudimentary compilation and calculation of these reviews is a futile attempt at best.

That's part of the reason I frown upon this sort of crude score system of reviews rendered by one reviewer. I think that dialogue and communication amongst critics are the best ways to accurately portray the value of a game. But what do I know, neither Gamespot nor EGM pay me $300k a year to be their editor-in-chief.

you're right....I will

but about me being hypocritical...I'm not saying what the final score should be...I couldn't care less whether it was a 9.2 or a 9.9. I haven't even played the whole game (just a demo). I'm saying that from what I read (before looking at the score) it sounded like there were enough problems in the game to warrant it a 'less than almost perfect' score. That's my perspective. I have no problem with the score he gave the game...maybe, in his eyes, the game does warrant a 9.6. But if those problems that he mentioned are in fact in the game, I wouldn't hesitate to actually mark the game down for that.