What are some other games that get undue praise and accolades without actually being deserving of them...

What are some other games that get undue praise and accolades without actually being deserving of them, or being excused of all flaws for being part of a certain series made by a certain developer?

Holy fuck Quentin let it go

I just got done beating Eventide Island in BotW.
The game is a 10/10, accept it.

Literally every game that exists. Yes, even the games you like.
Everyone is bias about something, which is why a 100% unbias review doesn't exist.

Any AAA game

Who decides whether something ACTUALLY deserves its accolades?

You?

Witcher 3 is praised as game of the decade just for not being stale shit like Skyrim and DA:I. And even at that it sometimes fails(e.g. witcher sense)

Frankly there are so many 'publications' that review videogames entirely dependent on videogame ad revenue I'm pretty sure every game that gets released nowadays could track down one 10/10 rating to slap on its boxart.

So what, to make it a real 10/10 it should have been rated 14/10?

Final Fantasy

10/10 implies the game is flawless
BoTW is in no definition of the word 'flawless'

Don't get me wrong, it's still a good game, but it's not the 11/10 masterpiece the fanboys would have you believe it is

In a world in which anything below 7/10 or below 70 metascore is considered shit I'd say it's completely justified to rate botw 10/10.

That's not true, check the scales for the reviews

10 does not mean it's perfect, on all the scales

Zelda, Pokeymans, Final Fantasy, Mario, etc. Basically the X+1 release of famous console titles. Its really heinous with zelda though. Literally every "gamer" will talk about how awesomestest ocarina of time or some other early shit was for nerd cred.

R-reviews don't mean anything!

Until the game gets a lukewarm review, then that's the one that counts!

What game honestly does Zelda type gameplay better than Zelda though? They're accessible, fun, fairly challenging if you play blind, and they have nice graphics and sound.

I've never really been a huge zelda fan and I didn't really enjoy OoT that much and I reckon BotW is really deserving of it's score on metacritic.

Wow.

Sony cucks are really desperately hurt and having trouble processing the fact that Breath Of The Wild is masterpiece aren't they?

Most games that get high scores today are actually very mediocre.

Any game with a ton of cutscenes or story fluff that interrupt your gameplay experience is a bad video game. Period.

Having said that, BoTW is one of the best 3D Zeldas in that regard.

Fanboyism is a factor SOMETIMES. Most times, it's a matter of group think. It's the desire to conform to a communities opinion, in this case, through high appraise of a video game. Think about it, if you called out shitty EA games for what they were, when everyone else was giving them 8-10/10, nobody would trust your opinion.

What the picture is referring to is true for The Legend of Zelda though. Skyward Sword has a very restricted overworld for a Zelda game, and a fuckin' dungeon boss was recycled. Those alone should have knocked off like 3 points, but fuckin' Zelda bonus gives those points right back, so IGN can flawless it. This is a form of the Nirvana or AC/DC affect.

*biased
*unbiased

If you give something a 10/10.you are saying you believe it to be perfect on all levels. Otherwise, it's a 9/10.

Same but opposite on the score.

Based Aonuma-san.

Sony cucks have been on suicide watch for over a week now.

>10/10 implies the game is flawless

You know very well that this has never been true any more than a movie getting 5 stars out of 5 meaning the movie is perfect and nothing about it could be better.

It means the game's flaws are insignificant enough that they don't have a noticeable negative impact on its quality as a whole.

This is at best pedantic. Does two thumbs up from Ebert mean a movie is flawless?

Nothing is flawless, and reserving the highest ranking on such a short scale for something that can't be awarded is nonsense.

>10/10 implies the game is flawless
no it doesn't because video games can't be flawless, this is just a shitty argument made by retards who can't accept a game they don't like getting a 10/10

That's objectively not true

Review scales exist, go check them out. None of them say 10/10 is a perfect game, at most it's a masterpiece. If it can't be a full score, why even have 10/10 score in the first place?

Stop leaving in denial

>What are some other games that get undue praise and accolades without actually being deserving of them
each and every one of them

The Zelda Bonus is definitely real, but BOTW without it is still a pretty good game. That's why it's getting so many perfect scores, because it's actually above average for the first time in Zelda's history.

Okami

The problem is that Sup Forums exists. I browse a lot of Sup Forums in general, and I come here for any news on upcoming games or if something is broken/buggy at launch. I usually try to stay away from threads like this though, because I know websites like IGN are payed to review, and are biased as shit, but everyone on Sup Forums kinda just hates everything, all of the time, and when I browse threads like this, I have to remind myself that this is only a small handful of people, and their opinions don't really mean anything outside of this board.

10/10 implies that the game scored the maximum possible under the reviewer's rating bracket.

For all you know, the scale goes from 1 (So bad that Satan himself wouldn't play it) to 10 (Rent, don't buy).

>Zelda Bonus

Nah. I think every single 3D Zelda up until now is pretty shitty. BoTW is good because it's NOT like those other garbage Zelda games.

BoTW is the first real 3D Zelda game.

Happy 18th birthday faggot!

It is easier, has even more padding, and runs out of steam wayyy before the game ends

So no

I am aware that a game cannot be flawless. I am not saying that a 10/10 game is flawless though, I am saying that the person who gives the thing that score is calling it flawless. But that is why a 10/10 score simply should not exist, because 10 out of 10 means in checks every god damn box on the list, and no game, or movie can do that.

Ultimately it is just opinions of individual people, but if you write a review, are honest, unbiased, and you do not accept a bribe, then chances are the general public is going to agree with you, so if you applied that to a game like Skyward Sword, you'd realistically have a 7 or 8/10, and I'm sure most people who like adventure games, and like The Legend of Zelda (but aren't massive fucking cunt fanboys) would agree.

Search your feelings. You know deep down inside, those other 3D Zeldas were terrible. Excessive padding and-holding and linearity in a Zelda game is bad. It's bad in any game.

Eh. I'd say botw is about 6 or 7 maybe 8 if your a nintendie. Theres some menu clunk, medicore soundtrack and a some other issues.

Uncharted

BotW is actually a 10/10 game

>40% off for menu
Autism

That's wrong though, people have different scales. A 10/10 to them is definitely not flawless, just that it is the best they played so far

You literally have no argument as to why 10/10 MUST mean perfect when even the reveuwers themselves say they don't

>zelda bonus

but everyone is saying this is barely a zelda game

how do explain that

What? I said theres other issues. Are you being stupid on purpose. There was no need to even reply to me.

>He wasn't even born in 1998 let alone be old enough to experience the bombshell that Ocarina Of Time was and how it reconditioned the industry's expectations of what video games could be.

People get too caught up in scores. It's a well-known fact most game reviewers are weaksauce sissies raised on Playstation babby garbage. So many high reviews are given to mediocre AAA games, while many low scores are given to esoteric or indie titles for being too difficult for their pampered asses.

Review scores are worthless. Just play the game for yourself. I guarantee there's tons of games that got middling reviews that you passed over because they got low scores but you'd actually enjoy the fuck out of.

We don't take too kindly to rational posts round these parts.

Breath of the Wild is the 2nd, 3D Legend of Zelda title to have a completely open, traditional box style over world. The first was Wind Waker. Some would argue that WW is even more open, because you can freely explore every centimeter of that ocean. But I guess the same can now be said for BotW because it's got one of those Skyrim things going on, where if there's a way, there's a will.

Naughty Dog games
Kojima games

Sometimes it is not even the developer but you can instantly see a game was built to be popular, like movies made for Oscar nominations. TLOU and Horizon is the prime example of this practice.

I was already an adult when OOT came out. I thought it was terrible then, I think it's terrible now.

People were just blinded by the fact that the game brought cinematic elements to Zelda and the fact that N64 finally had something to fucking play after long periods of drought. Everything OOT introduced to the Zelda franchise made the game worse. It's basically ALTTP except it's shit.

The amount of reviewers who sperged out on twitter because they were excited for their BOTW review copies, then posted pictures of themselves grinning as they held it..

No way they wouldn't give it a 10/10. They want more Nintendo stuff, and Nintendo is very strict over who it "trusts" with review copies.

literally every Sony exclusive

"The game is good because everybody else says it is!" is not a good argument.

GTA, it is a shit game that always gets high scores bevause of edgy teens.

It's already been discovered that getting an oscar is pretty much like waiting in line and hoping you stay relevant in pictures long enough to get your turn.

Also developers use to stray from the pack. Take a look at the beloved Breath of Fire franchise for example. I-IV are considered classics, with III even being critically acclaimed. They could have stuck to the formula with V, but they tried something new, took a gamble, and no one liked it, so Breath of Fire VI is literally a trashy, soulless free to play mobile game, because it probably makes bank and never had to try.

Actually, it's a fucking great argument.

It's literally the worst argument. Learn to think for yourself instead of hiding under the wool of other sheep.

I mean the game is considered good because many people consider it good.

You can argue that the game IS actually good or not, but it has been widely praised.

Technically thats a logical fallacy. But fuck if anyone actually cares.

>Pass a science test
>Flawlessly get the right answer, prove it accurately, describe how you did it clearly
>Graded 20/20, or 100/100 or whatever because your copy is literally perfect with what the teacher expected of you

Why exactly have a numerical grade system if the rating that's supposed to be perfect isn't actually perfect?

Fucking fanboys.

Tomb Raider was widely praised when it first came out. So was Resident Evil. Even fucking Battle Arena Tohshinden. Those games are all garbage today.

Those games were all praised because people were willing to overlook their awful gameplay or design choices because...shiny keys or something. Same thing goes for OOT.

So everyone else is wrong except you.

What a wonderful world you must live in.

>Everyone

I'm not the only person in the world who thinks OOT isn't great. Not by a longshot.

So what do you like about Ocarina of Time, then? Do you actually like the game or do you praise it because it was 'revolutionary' or something? Or because everybody else said it was revolutionary? Do you actually have any real opinions?

Bias does exist but does every game get positive bias or do some get positive and others get negative bias.

>describe how you did it clearly
but what if you could describe it even clearer? if you don't describe it perfectly clear, with absolutely no chance for misinterpretation by anyone, is it 100/100?

The only flawless games that come to mind is simple shit like tetris, and I can't play more than 10 minutes of that before dying of bordeom

I'd play TTGM stuff but I don't want to have to buy an arcade board

If you could be clearer then it's not 100/100. If you made a grammar mistake, even small, then it's not 100/100, even if it only takes one point.

But what if it's clear to one person but less clear to another? How can we know it's perfectly clear?

I remember when Bioshock: Infinite was 10/10 best game ever.

Nobody cares

If you don't make a sleeper hit out of nowhere You must make a biography/drama (preferably historical) movie to have a chance at the oscar in the important categories. There is a certain taste amond the voters just as there is a certain taste among video game journalists. If you go against this you face risks no one wants to take. Of course not everyone is skilled enough to just put together a game like Horizon or TLOU just because they know what parts to take from other games / media but it is still deliberately made targeting a 95+ on meta.

...

Then you can take a fucking special ed class I don't know. It's simple, you rate a game 10/10, it's perfect (in your opinion), if it's 9/10, it's not. Make a short statement as to why you believe it has no flaws, and call it good.

It's your analogy. You can get 10/10 on a test without being flawless, and a game can get 10/10 without being flawless.

>So what do you like about Ocarina of Time, then? Do you actually have any real opinions?

Ocarina of Time had groundbreaking leaps in game design, gameplay mechanics and player/controller amalgamation It not only redefined interactive entertainment, but that its influence continues to permeate the industry to this day and it's innovations have been ripped off by everyone for the past 20 years.

Things like:

>Z-targeting is an ingenious and eloquent solution to real-time 3D combat. You could strafe, skip around your opponent, block, parry, backflip, use an item from your inventory - all without it ever becoming confusing. Go back and look at early Playstation games and realise how FUCKED 3D gaming was before ooT.

>The genius inclusion of the companion fairy, who would point things out, drop hints and offer comfort to the player (bearing in mind this was when playing in 3D was new and could have easily overwhelmed the player).
>Or what about the secluded forest opening portion of the game. A brilliant piece of game design which acts as a tutorial sectional making (at that time) a relatively complex control scheme as second nature as breathing by the time you step out into the full game world?
>What about the entire fucking control pad doubling as a musical instrument and weaved into the gameplay?
>Context sensitive controls. Every other game tried to include a button for EVERY action. Nintendo gave you ONE button to press - it's use changing depending on the situation. They even removed the need for a jump button. All of this is innovative design which frees the player's mind from doing the donkey work so they can concentrate on more complicated issues and just plain ENJOY the game.
>Even simple things like using the in-game graphics engine for cut scenes so that the player doesn't lose immersion.

All of this shit might seem obvious game design 101 now but thats only because devs have stood on the shoulders of giants for the past 20 years.

>reviews mean nothing , always
unless you are a fanboy or a drone , but neither of that will stop you from being the fucking retard you are

Z-targetting basically took the lock on that Megaman Legends had and perfected it, it didn't totally invent it though

Any game released in 2017 as a full priced "AAA" game that doesn't at least run at a stable 60fps on consoles or is optimised well enough to at least run at a stable 60fps on mid tier pc builds objectively should not be given a 10/10 ranking. Anyone who does that is basically giving entirely meaningless numbers.

Mega Man Legends was released more than halfway into the development of Ocarina of Time, and at that point, they were merely putting on the finishing touches. The Z-Targeting system was already implemented into development by the time Legends was released.

You're defending the annoying fairy (hand-holding), the shitty tutorial level, and the unskippable cutscenes? I'll grant you that a lot of people copied OOT in those aspects, but I definitely would not call that a good thing. In fact, those respects are a lot of why I think the game is terrible. Influence is not always good in some cases.

Yes but since most developers patch shit, and because you can bet your ass Nintendo is going to patch BotW, the person who scored it with bugs and frame drops in mind will have to go back and re-review it.

>Sony Bonus

Horizon getting 10/10

>Naughty Dog Bonus

The Last of Us with douzens of 10/10

>Fallout Bonus

Fallout fucking 4 getting good scores

>Valve Bonus

>People still sucking their dick despite introducing DRM and fanboys shitting up every thread against them

In other words people are still mad they dont have Zelda on their console of choice

Yes but how is it really a tutorial "level". You don't actually have to talk to any of of the Kokiri that dish out advice, and any text you can't skip is exposition and story.

>console game

all the Souls games

I highly doubt Zelda will be able to be patched to run at a locked 60fps, while fixing the shitty textures. The hardware just isn't there, which is a shame because it likely would have been if Nintendo decided to make full time home console over a tablet.

Why haven't you offed yourself yet?

Like I said, this was a time when gaming in 3D was an entirely new thing.

Players could very easy have been overwhelmed by the scope and concept f that back then.

The tutorial and fairy companion were fanatastic game design elements to make games feel confident and secure while playing.

Will the ADD kids of today roll their eyes at it? Sure.

...

>Will the ADD kids of today
Just fucking stop already. Also stop formatting your posts like you just came from reddit.

Yes, because at the time, PC gaming was shit. You had a couple of competitive games like Quake, and some of the spergiest fuckin' autistic man children alive playing them, but nothing else really. Plus a Game console gave you pretty on par with (at the time) PC quality graphics for like 200 bucks, where as a PC that could properly run Quake II, probably still cost around 1500 bucks.

>shitposting
you should be ashamed, user
you don't have to feel bad for liking kiddie shit on a kiddie platform, but don't try to paint it as some milestone of gaming.

Either you were a normal 10 year old playing Ocarina of Time, or you were this guy playing Quake II and Doom.

Nice argument faggot.

>a normal 10 year old playing OOT
sorry to disappoint you buddy, I was busy stuffing faggots like you into the toilet.

So if it's genuinely 10/10 it would have to get 14/10?

Your logic is astounding

Always in denial. Keep on trucking kiddo.

what if i played both?

Pure mental gymnastics. If the reviewer was a fanboy blinded by nostalgia, he'd drop points for the lack of "Zelda" in this Zelda. If it was "yet another Zelda", nobody would give a 10 to one with 4 short recycled dungeons. But people don't review other games using the Dungeon metric

You should get a shotgun bonus for your head.