Tears of the Kingdom and Meaningless Review Scores | Extra Punctuation
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ส.ค. 2024
- Get your set of Limited Edition Adventure is Nigh dice at the link: diceenvy.com/c...
Support us on Patreon to get Early Access to new videos, exclusive Discord perks & more for just $2 per month ►► / the_escapist
Join our growing Discord community: / discord
Subscribe to Escapist Magazine! ►► bit.ly/Sub2Esca...
Want to see the next episode a week early? Check out www.escapistmag... for the latest episodes of your favorite shows.
---
---
The Escapist Merch Store ►►teespring.com/...
Join us on Twitch ►► / the_escapist_official
Like us on Facebook ►► / escapistmag
Follow us on Twitter ►► / escapistmag
![จบจนได้ ! | Black Myth: Wukong #007 [ตอนจบ?]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DSqvWndF0sw/mqdefault.jpg)
Note: The dice will be available for purchase on Wednesday, June 14th!
@@CatLover_69 note: they don't care.
@@CatLover_69 Fine. More dice for the rest of us!
@@hanniballahr94 Note: Bcat doesn't need to comment here anymore :)
😂
@@DiamondDM13 You can argue that people enjoyed the game. What you can't argue that reviewers who become critical snobs with other gaming entities somehow have no criticism for the Zelda enterprise. The same reviewers who are like "Eh, I didn't much enjoy the combat" are now perfectly fine with the breaking mechanics.
Yahtzee is now reviewing the review process itself. He has ascended.
He needs to evolve further and review what game journalists have to say about reviewing the reviewing process. 🥷
He is the quiz hat haterac (sp)
@@chadjones1266yeah
It's just like when you are undergrad History major and graduate level. You start researching the meta history instead of who was writing the history and why and not the history itself.
He's finally becoming as good as Matthew matosis
Arlo had a good point about review scores in his video about why he doesn’t do them anymore, which is that they devalue the review itself. A score means no one actually reads the review, they just reduce the whole thing to the number at the end and then argue about the number being too high or too low by their standards. It removes context and qualitative analysis and turns it into vidya dick measuring contests.
You see that a lot with comments on reviews from outlets like IGN. People are always arguing about how "Arkham Knight got a 9/10 while Rome Total War only got a 6/10" or some other random example with any two games. Despite the fact that the 2 games being compared have absolutely nothing in common.
It's easy to hate on outlets like IGN but I'd argue that the public can be just as bad with how they just skip to the end of a video and then talk about nothing but the number rating in the comments
This is probably a gaming community only problem because review scores in other media have been a thing for a long time.
@@michaeltaylor8698 Heck, there are comments which will post the score and say "You're welcome" and people will thank them for that.
@@shadowmaydawn exactly, the number is all that they care about
@@michaeltaylor8698this is so true I completely skip ign reviews just to see the score
Hey Yahtzee. I was the editor of Commodore Format and the author of the 100% review of Mayhem in Monsterland. Obviously I wrote that review back in 1993 hoping it would eventually gain traction on a massively popular gaming channel on a global streaming video service 30 years later. What can I tell you, I like to play the long game.
But in all seriousness, your video's absolutely correct about the validity of review scores. I've gone on record a couple of times explaining why I gave Mayhem 100% - but here's the not-so tl;dr. Both the magazine Commodore Format and the Commodore 64 were circling the drain at that time. No new games were being released and it was pretty soul-destroying re-reviewing re-releases of existing titles. So along came the Rowland brothers with this little platform game that they'd poured their heart and soul into - a rare gem of original content. We covered the games development and when I got the finished game to review, the idea for the review score began to form in my head. By the time I sat down to write the review I'd decided it was getting 100%.
I had a few reasons for the score. Firstly I (correctly) guessed that it would be the last proper original game for the C64. Secondly it was really fucking good. Thirdly since the magazine and the computer were going the way of the dinosaurs I figured, let's go out on a high note, like KLF burning a million quid. And fourthly, I just wanted to generate some publicity for the Rowland brothers so they could make a bit of coin off this glorious little title they'd made for a dying computer platform. The score was also a not-so subtle commentary on review scores - a 'why the fuck not' sort of thing - if Empire can give a film five stars out five - why can't I give a game 100%. One thing's for sure - if it had been a five star review I highly doubt we'd be here talking about it now. :)
I really like the "buy now/buy on sale/ wait for patches/ don't bother" scale of review score. It's still arbitrary, but if you know what kind of games the reviewer likes, it can help to make a more informed purchase
That's literally the same thing as "rate out of five, round to the nearest integer if necessary, then if you rated it a five, knock it down to a four. Finally, tell everyone you rated it out of four instead of five." IMHO that's more reasonable than it sounds, but it would sort of break Metacritic because they'd have no way of distinguishing scores in the 80-100 range. OTOH, I think that Yahtzee's point is that the entire 80-100 range is completely subjective and arbitrary anyway.
@@NYKevin100oTK could have been theoretically better but I have a feeling it started running into switch hardware limitations. It is by FAR the best PORTABLE Zelda game ever made and probably possible to make on current Portable Nintendo Switch hardware. I think people forget that switch is many many years old portable tech.
So you like ACG basically haha
The fact that “wait for patches” is even needed just makes me sad.
ACG did that; I wonder if he still does.
The "hilt" thing was exactly what I thought they were going to do when they broke the Master Sword and gave you the hilt as soon as you wake up. I was like "Oh, is the Master hilt going to be a way to make sure you always have some kind of weapon even if the stuff you attach to it can still break? That's a cool mechanic, I wonder how--- nope, it's gone, immediately"
Ya it’s weird because at least with BotW you always had bombs as a backup (Bokoblin goes flying, you can steal their weapon or blow up a tree for a branch). There is no such backup like that in TotK. You’re always dependant on manipulating another object (need a crate to throw at them, or a bow to shoot your 200+ arrows, and no way to destroy trees with runes). I guess the replenishing weapons in the Lookout area are the “backup” but you still have to make it there first, and obviously means teleporting away from your current battle (if you run out in the middle of one).
@@mrshmuga9 Yeah, except in TotK you can directly throw materials at enemies. You don't have "a bomb" - you have about a dozen and a half of flavours of bombs, from a standard bomb to a bomb that turns enemies against each other.
@@NekoiNemo I was thinking in terms of if you've run out of resources, none of your abilities can be used as direct attacks. For example something like Eventide Island in BotW where it strips you of everything, you'll always have a bomb thanks to the rune. In TotK they'd have to leave at least a stick or rock or something around because your base abilities can't be used as attacks.
As for throwable items... bombs can only be found in the depths (or more common as far as I've played). You can throw them, but what happens if you run out of them or other materials? You could find a chuchu, let it explode itself, and throw it on a fire (unless you find a fire chuchu) but that's highly circumstantial and doesn't do much damage. I haven't beat it yet, but I don't think any of those materials outside of bombs will be as powerful in battle (or usable) as bombs. What happens when your mind-controlled Moblin kills all the other enemies and you have no bombs? I don't think he'll kill himself.
I wasn't labelling it as a huge criticism either, BTW. Enemy camps tend to have at least one archer so you'll always be able to make better use of those materials. It just seemed like a minor oversight. Because if you happen to run out of weapons or bows, you're not going to have enough bombs or mind mushrooms to really be able to compensate. You'd find a way to get some kind of weapon instead.
@@mrshmuga9 Bombs can be found in every single cave. It's rare to go into a cave and come out with less than 4-5 more bombs than you went into it with. Similarly, the entire Hyrule is plastered with the elemental fruit bushes. You would have to go out of your way to avoid them to ever even have a chance of running out of them... And then there are chuchu jelly, which is also elemental and is awarded from killing a fairly common enemy AND can be foce-converted to a different element if you need it. Plus, this is no a BotW where a branch is basically a joke weapon - here you can, as long as you have a 2-3 second break in a fight, you can just quickly drop an item and fuse it to a branch and get a viable mid-game level weapon out of practically nothing. And if worst comes to worst - you can just fuse a branch to a rock that are laying everywhere and voila - you have a viable low-tier weapon from garbage you literally found under your feet.
TotK's major difference is that it forces you to get creative, rather than just giving you a one-stop solution to all problems - infinite bombs. Hell, if you run out of both weapons and ALL of the materials (somehow, you would have to try, but lets for the sake of the argument assume you did) - just switch to the zonai devices tab, drop down few parts and use autobuild to reassemble a battle droid or a automatic turret on a stake. Or, worst case scenario - drop one of the emitters, throw a lisht seed at it (something you're NEVER going to run out of, even if you actively try to), then pick it up and use it to deal with the enemies. The possibilities of how you can defeat a group of enemies with "nothing" are practically infinite, unlike the BotW where the answer was just "throw bomb, then the other one, then wait for the first one to come off the cooldown".
Game even has an entire series of Shrines to try to beat it into the player, when they give you a stick and tell to take down an entire bunch of constructs, forcing you to get to grips on how to use your surroundings to dominate an entire squad of tough and heavily armed enemies using just a stick.
Oh, and don't even get me started on the 5 companions you get to have, one of whom can be used as a permanent weapon and shield, and another as an elemental projectile with massive AoR that has very short cooldown
@@mrshmuga9 that shouldn’t happen
I tend to think of a review score as an ‘extent of recommendation’. Therefore 10/10 would mean ‘I could not recommend this more’, which isn’t the same as saying something is perfect. That’s just me though.
Michigan: Report from Hell is 10/10
@@kricku ..........you are the modern day Diogenes and Report from Hell is your plucked chicken
Agree on this. 10/10 means "Would you recommend this?" "Absolutely" If someone were to ask you without context "What new video game should I play?" that this game would be among the first recommendations.
That's a good idea. However, you have to find out if the reviewer is actually using it like that, or has a completely different system.
This is the only reasonable way a review score can be interpreted. It can't mean "This game is objectively better than this other game" because a review is just a subjective opinion.
This video is the first time I’d ever heard of Mayhem in Monsterland and now that I’ve finished watching the video it sold me on wanting to emulate it to see what it was all about.
Thanks for that Yahtz!
Yeah apparently it's better than Red Dead Redemption 2
Probably because it doesn't have horses
@@CrispBaker “10/10, it doesn’t have horse testicle physics.”
Yeah it’s probably not that odd for a C64 only magazine to give it that, Mayhem in Monsterland is one of those games that appears fairly average but given hardware limitations it is a miracle that it even functions.
Be careful, since its a literaly perfect game it will be all downhill after that one. No other game will compare....
Make sure you're prepared with an extra clean pair of underpants.
When I first started watching ZP, I thought it was weird that Yahtzee didn't give a score, but I've grown up and learned that getting a score on a game doesn't explain things due to how preferential treatment works. Honestly, I prefer Yahtzee's method of just giving a quick and dirty about the highs and lows of the games he plays. I'm also glad 3MR does the same.
I think the reason Yahtzee is the one critic I have consistency watched for well over a decade is that the escapist always gave him editorial freedom, and a big part of that wasn't needing to give a score.
Scores are the worst thing that have ever happened to criticism. Nothing makes me more mad than when I see some chucklefuck on IGN’s Facebook post saying “8/10 saved you a click.”
I keep forgetting that some people actually watch Yahtzee to hear about the games. I just love to hear him take the piss out of everything.
He has actually given scores as jokes a couple times. He gave Wolfenstein 2009 two stars and gave Smash Bros Brawl a 4.
A rare L take from yahtz. Critics in other media give scores knowing fully all the points yahtzee made and still scoring anyway. I guess the difference is the audience for other media are more likely to read the actual review than making an opinion off of just the scores.
The weapon crafting mechanic that you described is basically an advanced version of what Biomutant has. Where you can have a banana for a hilt and a plunger for a sword.
@@SpottedHares What do you expect from a game that anyone hardly ever talks about.
I had way more fun with Biomutant than I did with Tears of The Kingdom.
I completely forgot about that game despite beating it. I was hoping for so much more from that game, but it was so basic.
Shame the game was as shallow as a puddle of piss
You can make Piano Sword that goes "PLONK!" Clown Horn shotgun that honks! The game's a ramshackle mess of terrible ideas (And a couple great ones!) held together with visible sticky-tape, but Goddamn did I spend more hours than I'd like to admit looting abandoned buildings and slapping junk together into ridiculous weapons. I'd probably play it again before I'd play the new Horizon, if i'm honest.
I do like Gameranx's review system of providing pros, cons, who's this for, and clearly personal opinions.
Yep! Jake makes awesome reviews, he is very upfront when he doesn't like the game because it isn't his style but still appreciates it and recommends it if its your style!
Worthabuy also uses similar pros/cons system
@@LuisSoto-fw3if im more of a falcon man myself
Does it ever occur to people that getting genuinely upset about review scores for media products (whether they be artsy, kitchy, or whatever) only ever demonstrates immaturity on their part? Seriously people, it is not worth it!
the people who get upset over it consider anyone else equally immature
The problem I see with not leaving yourself wiggle room by giving something a 10/10 or 100% is that, while I DO have a small handful of games/movies/shows/books/etc that I would place in that highest score bracket (not to say I consider them absolutely perfect, but that I consider them among the absolute best works in their respective mediums), I typically only come to that conclusion after playing/watching/reading the thing and then giving myself time to reflect on it. I consider Subnautica one of the absolute best games I've ever played, both from my experience playing it and from a high level design perspective, but I only realized that about a year later when I'd gone through it a few times and had time to step away from it and ruminate on it. That's something that just isn't facilitated by typical review practices, which demands reviews come out immediately after or even before the release of the thing in question.
Well said. If I had to list out my ten favorites in any medium, there would be a few I loved right from the beginning, some that grew steadily in esteem with each revisit, and even a few that I disliked at first because they were so far outside my expectations. There’s no substitute for time. I feel for critics who have to pump out a review on day 1, but I wish more reviewers did reappraisals after the dust settles. Especially with a massive game like TOTK, there’s no way to form a complete impression of it in a week or even a month.
Those people throwing tantrums and threats at less-than-perfect scores are just as much reviled by the rest of the fandom, I assure you, indeed probably more so since they drag the rest of us into the muck by proxy.
Unfortunately they do have a habit of speaking louder than the rest of us.
I know what you mean. It's even worse when they target the rest of the Zelda fanbase with their bile. I, sadly, know this from experience: when _Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity_ released and it turned out that all the trailers advertising it as a prequel to Breath of the Wild were false advertising, I criticized the false advertising (not the game itself; just the marketing). I have been bombarded with almost continuous bile for two years now by fans saying stuff like, "Nintendo never lied; you're just a [hater/unpleasable fanboy]!" (and that's one of the mildest examples).
@@matthewmuir8884 Wait, it wasn't a prequel?! What was the point of its story then? (I skipped it because I have Hyrule Warriors on the 3DS and didn't feel I was missing much beyond lore I could get later)
@@matthewmuir8884 Hyrule warriors is a cool hack and slash, but it's clearly not as robust as mainline Zelda Games. Based on my experience with the first one, they don't even attempt to unify the franchise nor adhere to overarching Zelda fidelity. Its a blast and a silly little time and it excels at that.
Sounds like you were arguing with children or child-minded folks.
@@sluttyMapleSyrup Age of Calamity is an alternate-timeline story where Terrako: an egg-shaped guardian robot, travels back in time to shortly before the Calamity in order to prevent the Calamity from happening, and it succeeds; in the new timeline the robot egg creates, the Calamity is stopped before it can truly begin and everybody lives. Its plot is very similar to that type of fanfiction where a fan creates an alternate course of events just so their favourite characters get a happier ending.
I give this review a 10/10!
From this day to the heat death of the universe you, Yahtzee, have now been branded. You cannot create a review that is better than this one, by the law that I made the fuck up.
I'd even go as far as saying his review was a 100%/100
@@Kwizii I give it a 99/100, you almost got it but unfortunately you are wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it. It's objectively 99, I measured it!
I thought it was more like 83.14159%.
🐓/10
I can respect Destructoid for literally telling you what their number score means right under the number. They state outright that a 10 doesn't mean a perfect game, but just that few games can match its quality.
Even video game dunky said in his video about game reviews how whenever he gives a 3/5 it means it isn't bad and u might find it enjoyable
@@meapickleEven tho he stopped giving scores, but yea
@Quaza true, but when he did he at least made it clear that 3/5 is basically what the industry says an 8/10 is
"Few games can match the quality of Mayhem in Monsterland for the Commadore64"
Nothing is perfect, but a 10/10 game will forever be part of who I am.
People should learn to stop substituting media they like for a personality.
i see your point, especially when people use their media preference as identity labels, but i‘m inclined to disagree slightly.
personal experience is not the best measure, but i know a lot of people, myself included, who use media to reflect about themselves and improve accordingly.
and if people feel motivated to become better people, or get to know themselves better, or just to incorporate things they love into their daily life, there‘s no shame in that.
BOTW Link (or rather my mental projection onto him) helped me decide that i wanted to step out of my comfort zone and be more adventurous and courageous.
I‘d still say I have a personality regardless, the media in my life just changed it over time, just like real life people did.
Amd if it brings them joy and they hurt no one, who cares?
@@atlas956 Do you understand the difference between incorporating something into something else and substituting something for something else? 'Cause you're arguing against a huge strawman here.
@@GLC48 Kind of interesting that adults who watch cartoons get this sort of rep, but not people who - for example - are addicted to Marvel movies. Or fill their entire house with funko pops/action figures. Same level of media addiction, I guess they're just more entertaining? Like watching a car wreck? I'd say it also happens a lot with politics, particularly Redditors, who live and breathe politics and thus can't NOT be obnoxious because they bring it up everywhere.
People's personalities are what they do, that goes for everyone... difference is, normal people also have friends and go outside, so that their personality isn't just 1 thing, I guess.
@@atlas956 No, there *is* shame in that. The moment you improve, you discard the over reliance on and attachment to the thing, like tossing diapers after you learn potty training.
I think certain specific situations speak to someone's past or recreate something that happened to them. I think its one thing to take credit for media as being ones personality and representing and emulating someone's past and therefore enriches their human experience.
There are inherent problems in trying to rank games objectively. I was frustrated by AC New Horizons because even opening a menu can't be done without a 2 second animation wasting the player's time, but my sister loved the slow pace that it provided.
the problem is that if you happen to slightly disagree with a popular opinion people will dogpile on you and try to take a doogy dump on you for it.
There are only a few objective standards that every game has.
>does it work
>does it adequately perform what it sets out to do
>does it have enough content to arguably justify the on-release price tag
>is it optimized
Brutal Legend is a great example of a game that works completely fine but completely forgot what it sets out to do, and for some reason ended up being a heavy-metal themed tower defense game. Most Call of Duty games are polished but if not for the multiplayer, they wouldn't be worth paying full-price for and therefore I'd never be able to recommend most to anyone who doesn't have an internet connection. Optimization and bugs are self-explanatory, and I think Tears of the Kingdom is a great example of a game that's optimized to a T.
@@Hyrule409even those have exceptions, especially for AAA games trying to appeal to many different audiences, as the parts of the game that are important to one person may not be the same as another.
ACG's scale of "Buy, Wait for Sale, Rent, or never play" is perfect
Maybe not "perfect", but it is much more effective at helping your judgement.
The completionist had that review system for a long time. "Complete it, Finish it, Play it, Avoid it, Burn it." It went away after the channel revamp many years ago, but the spirit of that system is still in his newer videos.
wait we can still rent games?
@@theshuman100 xbox game pass, borrowing it from a friend, etc
If you want a product review, maybe.
But if you take money out of the equatiion and want to review the game purely on its merits then that scale becomes mostly equivalent to 'thumbs up' and 'thumbs down'.
Review scores tend to be in this bizarre limbo where everyone makes fun of the four-point score where everything is between 7-10 but the second you step out of it (see: James Stephanie Sterling, who does tend to use 5/10 to go "eh it was okay" rather than "this game is deeply flawed") people just can't seem to handle it
School (or at least the American school system) has completely ruined the general public's ability to translate scores to the actual takeaway. I'm very much an advocate for the 5/10 is average approach, but I guess the problem ends up being that if you try to aggregate the reviews based just on number, if nine reviewers say 8 is average and the tenth says 5 is average, the tenth "ruins" it for everyone.
Basically it's all nonsense.
Or Angry Joe who still uses 5 to mean an average game. Most game reviewers uses 7 as an average (looking at you, IGN) which makes zero sense.
@@akmal94ibrahim I think it makes some kind of sense, because your system might be such that games that would get 0-4 you would absolutely never see. 0: Game does not boot up at all or otherwise completely unplayable. 1: Game technically can be played, but there's nothing you can do that's meaningful 2: Game has a few things that can be done that might warrant some degree of a feeling of accomplishment, but it can't in anyway be described as "fun" 3: Game had at least a few things that might be considered fun, but it's such a chore to get to them and the game is so awfully made that you'd never want to try 4: You might actually be able to have a reasonable amount of fun without too much effort, but the game is mostly a broken mess and very little makes sense. 5: The lowest possible score for any game that anyone would actually put effort into marketing.
@@Gerd0You know, I think you hit the nail on the head here. Anything lower than 70% in american school grading is generally considered a failure. So that mindset transfered directly to gaming and other numeric score reviews
@@killme5900my sister would beg to differ. In fact her final grade was 102% because she always did the bonus questions.
I remember looking at the Tears of the Kingdom Metacritic page and finding that one review that gave it a 6/10, and I thought “Oh that reviewer’s gonna get slammed” because it brought down the overall Metascore down by one or two points, and people get really upset over that for some reason.
I saw it get posted to Reddit and made fun of. I thought that it would be one of the ones that's actually worth reading.
Is that the review that just complained that they wanted classic Zelda again
Metacritic scores are a huge part of the issue. They should probably be medians, not averages, so that one reviewer's pissant review score doesn't tank the overall score of a great game.
@@higurashikai09 Yep. They also had condescending gems like: "If you’re one of those _brave enough to admit_ that the open-world adventure leaned more on the problematic Wii Zelda era than the GameCube and N64 golden days" as if that is a true fact that most players are just lying to themselves about... More importantly though, the review does not discuss the implications of the new abilities at all, instead brushing them aside by calling them finicky and saying they don't add much. It's such an uncritical and frankly kind of whiny look at the game imo.
The fact that one outlier review can bring down a Metacritic score is proof enough of how meaningless a Metacritic score actually is. No matter how good something is, there will always be detractors and people who don't appreciate its strengths. Personal preference for specific aspects of a video game, for instance, does not determine its overall quality but rather influences one's individual enjoyment. All of the games that I enjoy the most have both die hard fans and die hard haters. The ratio of haters to fans has no impact on my own personal enjoyment of a game, so a system that combines all these opinions to try to provide a comprehensive evaluation of a product is inherently flawed. It's like a bald man reviewing a blow dryer and giving it a bad score simply because he doesn't have any hair.
Thank you for mentioning Mario Teaches Typing. If there ever were a perfect game I'd wager that would be it.
Nah Sonic's Schoolhouse is where it's at.
/s the game is shit
And it wasn't even developed or published by Nintendo.
nah man frog fractions.
I think a list of things the reviewer liked and a list of things they disliked, with the optional explanation of why, does a far better job than numerical scoring
In reference to the flail idea: there is not a single non-rigid physics object in the game that isn't attached to a wall, with the one exception of the folding ladder that you find down a well that (as far as I'm aware) is completely impossible to remove from said well. If you try to do so, the NPC scolds you as him needing it to leave the well (regardless of whether he's still down there or not) and returns it, or it breaks if it's made with Auto Build.
My best guess is that, since such things did exist in BotW and they use the same engine, is that they couldn't find a way to make it play nice with the attach function. Either playtesters kept crashing the game by attaching 15 ropes to something and flailing it around like an idiot, or it was too easy to confuse the physics engine by attaching things with ropes and creating double-pendulum-style chaotic motion. Probably both, or maybe something stupider. Since they didn't even do something like limit it to one rope per contraption, it must have been pretty broken.
So, point being, it seems like the Havok engine is probably fairly restrictive in certain ways and too much trouble to reprogram for this, and that's why we're stuck with the exact same weapons and combat system. Which is a shame, but also understandable -- physics are hard. Maybe Nintendo will try for a custom in-house engine for the next project so they can do such things.
Or maybe they'll drop it with DLC along with all the content The Depths are obviously missing and I'll have to eat my words -- pretty sure they hit crunch pretty hard near delivery date, because it's apparent parts of the game were NOT fleshed out.
weirdly enough it actually doesn't use the same engine as BOTW, data miners have found out that it instead runs on a different (as of yet unamed) engine that just pretends to be the BOTW one.
wasn't the game finished in 2022 and then they delayed the game for a year to polish it further?
@@emperortgp2424 Polish generally means most of the team has moved on to something else -- the crunch likely happened before that, then they found something(s) that needed some work on them in QA and decided to delay. Likely only the patch staff was still working on the game at that point, and the main staff was preparing for DLC.
Not that I know that for sure, but the lack of content in The Depths is pretty indicative of a hasty cut-and-paste job -- I can't imagine it was intended to be as empty and lifeless as it is.
@@darthtace Well if they did delay for polish, and the main team was aware of the depths being so barren, then they should've worked in tandem with the QA team to spruce up the depths a bit more. The crunch excuse rings hollow for me. Imagine if the depths had their own new set of monsters to fight and not just one new miniboss.
Besides, it's not just the depths. The whole game has a feeling of emptiness to it despite being filled with so much stuff to do. It's mostly because of the fact that so much of it is repeated content, it almost feels procedurally generated at some points.
i may be weird for finding fuse to be arguably my favorite mechanic in the game, then. i dont consider totk a perfect game without flaws, but i consider fuse itself to be practically 10/10
Great vid, it's usually more productive to look up the specific points different reviewers bring up, and decide for yourself whether those qualities would click with you or not!
Having played a lot of C64 titles, Mayhem in Monsterland looks surprisingly smooth for Commodore. From just the clip shown, I could see justification for it being regarded 10/10 at the time, especially by framerate enthusiasts. (Were there framerate enthusiasts in the early 90s?)
The "review score" format being super abritrary is why I like SkillUp's reviews, that just range from "I Recommend" to "I Do Not Recommend"
Cuz at the end of the day a recommendation is (broadly) why I watch game reviews.
I think the issue is at some point it got into the mindset of the general populace, along with some dev studios and reviewers, that 5 Stars/10 out of 10/100% means "perfect/flawless," when the original intent of that score is "Highest Recommendation."
They changed from being useful guides on referrals on products/media into tools that determine paychecks or create tribes over the perceived quality of things.
You know who doesn't think that any Legend of Zelda game is beyond improvement? Nintendo and the Dev Team who makes the bloody games! Yes, they are impressive and should be praised for what they are. But games, like us, can always be better. And with enough time, resources, and effort, they will be.
True, Tears of the Kingdom kinda does feel like "Let's make Breath of the Wild again, but better!" Same map, same graphics, but way more things to do, so many more ways to experiment, much more freedom in how you approach things. I can only think of what the result could be if they refined the formula even further.
Lol, if you think its the same as the first you really haven't played. That game is beyond improved. I don't know if you actually play it, i don't know if youre a bitter about the game, but let me tell you now, that game if winning game of the year
@@sautortheratkiller9172 I was literally praising the game you absolute dingus
@@sautortheratkiller9172ou are not talking to anyone in this thread. Why are you talking at people? People don't like getting talked at for no reason. Can you please read the words that are written and interpret them before you comment?
bot accounts, no doubt.
@@sautortheratkiller9172It's literally just 1/2 way through the year you Zelda fanboy. I hope it doesn't win just so you guys stay salty forever
I think the bigger issue is that people don't understand that you can have 10/10 enjoyment on an imperfect game or even bad game. They think their subjective enjoyment of a game and franchise they have a long history with is the definitive marker of quality and everyone else is crazy. They don't seem to understand that what you personally engaging isn't a reliable marker of quality. I love the game its my favourite game, its most definitely got a lot of room for improvement. The game is another great step in the right direction but it is at the end of the day a step not perfection. I got 12/10 enjoyment but if Im being objective its 7/10 game
Random example: I had a great time playing Too Human back in the day. It was definitely not a perfect game. Just because I found it personally engaging doesn't fix it's flaws or mean others found it engaging.
Goat simulator is 10/10 according to my significant other 😂😂
The issue with this is often there are things that can be done to improve it for you as an individual.
10/10 can't exist because it it is impossible to be perfect for you. Even if you keep pushing there will eventually be a hole that to fill results in something else having to have a hole as a result. 10/10 or a perfect enjoyment is dishonest.
Not intentionally dishonest but it isn't how things work.
but then why use the numbers at all? lol
Or at least, why on a scale of ten when you're never realistically gonna use more than four of them?
@@Buglin_Burger7878 For many people, their favourite games and things are perfect to them which is where the 10/10 comes from despite objectively nothing being perfect.
I think you could make a case for the meme "perfect 5/7" for being a better rating standard than simple x/10 scales.
Couple of my friends review board games over on Shelfside and I've always liked their system of review scores (which helps to avoid some of the issues with review scores that Yahtzee brought up here).
They offer two different styles of scoring for every game they review: a "Recommender Score" where they critically evaluate all of the pros/cons they uncover while playtesting and researching the game; and a "Personal Score" where each reviewer can weigh in on how much they enjoyed the game / what kind of experience they had with the game.
This allows for situations where they can more objectively recognize a game's strengths even if they themselves hated playing it.
E.G. - Wingspan is a solitaire tableau builder that both reviewers heavily disliked for its lack of player interaction and simplistic, but they game the game a high recommender score because the production quality and design behind the game was well implemented. They recognized that there are people out there who want that solitaire tableau builder experience and that Wingspan would be a great game for them.
It seems to me like much of modern review culture is too heavily focused on subjective opinion scoring- and the lack of objective evaluation of strengths/weaknesses is poisoning the well of larger discourse. I had my issues with BotW and eventually dropped the game due to a personal lack of interest but even so I can still recognize it as a fantastic game that will resonate with people. I'd hope to see more nuance like that in the future.
Siskel and Ebert perfected the methodology: get two perspectives, and a simple opinion toggle of “I liked it” or “I did not like it.” You get the perfect punnet square of review: two ups, two downs, or one up/one down from one direction or the other. Two thumbs up meant you were likely going to enjoy your investment of time and money. Two down, and you probably won’t. Split decision means you may or may not like it, depending on your perspective, and that’s all any of us need.
10/10 doesn't mean perfect, and it never has. It means so good that the one reviewing can comfortably ignore flaws or they begin to simply...not matter because they're so overshadowed.
This is also not exclusive to Zelda. The same happens with every Rockstar game ever. Now, with every Neil Druckmann game ever. I'm not saying these games don't deserve their 10s (well...I have major problems with Rockstar's games but that's personal opinion), but I'm pointing out that this isn't even close to just a BotW/TotK thing.
To be fair I felt more interested in playing Mayhem in Monster Land after seeing those clips than I have ever felt for Red Dead Redemption 2
Complaining that weapon fuses only let you add damage while showing a weapon fuse that adds a gust/knockback effect was an odd choice.
Yeah, honestly I usually really like Yahtzee and agree with him but he is simply way off base on TotK. He either doesn't understand all the possibilities offered by the weapon fusion mechanic or he is deliberately being obtuse. And honestly, I could apply a similar argument to almost all of his criticisms of the game.
"I need this game to be regarded as an immaculate work of art so that my mom stops pestering me to stop wasting my time on kid's games and get a job and move out of her basement."
Reminds me of that Roger Ebert article. Gaming still needs a few years to be taken seriously as art until it crosses this hump you are talking about
@@pramitpratimdas8198 I think there's plenty of games that already qualify as art. In fact, I think we're seeing the big dogs in the business treating games less like an art medium now than they used to - or at least, it's become prominent enough to notice over the course of the last decade.
This is going to sound very but at this point it's less games not being art and more game fans acting like children it's hard to take a medium respectfully when the biggest propopents on it act like there in high school when they are in there 30s
@@addex1236 It's also about media literacy. Most gamers haven't really gone far in other media - haven't read any Shakespeare, haven't experienced a Tarkovsky or Bergman film. So ofcourse the next big commercial game with bare minimum innovation will feel like high art.
@@pramitpratimdas8198 you nailed it hell video game media literacy is rare amongst game fans it's why the discussion of every game being a classic usually begins with I loved that game as a kid and don't get me wrong childhood nostalgia is a good thing but loving something as a kid doesn't make something a classic it makes it nostalgic which is fine but is different
This video is a underrated 10/10 masterpiece
I give your review 100%, perfect 👌
Ohh wow, Mayhem in Monsterland! I had that. It was the C64's 'answer' to Sonic the Hedgehog/Mario, and I remember being able to tell myself that with a straight face at the time too. It did its best :)
The criteria I tend to use when expressing my thoughts on a game is "Would I recommend that another person pay money for this game?" If so, would I stop there or would I caveat that with "but wait for a sale".
I think people that like Tears of the Kingdom would really like TrailMakers or TerraTech.
Tears of the Kingdom needs a sandbox mode. Could almost create a Pilotwings sub game within. Here’s some stuff, build what you want to go from here to there doing this and get your medal.
I’ll give those a look, thanks!
they can also play minecraft if they like going through tunnels and building stuff
My response to Tears of the Kingdom was almost identical to Breath of the Wild. I got really really into it for a few weeks until I finished the main bits and most of the sidequests, but now that it's finished I barely think about it at all.
Botw had a pretty big influence in the gaming industry, plenty of copycats in the triple A space, good Indies that took inspiration from it and ofcourse last year's goty showed clear signs of botw influence.
I think that's kind of expected for a game like this. It's got a lot of obvious strengths (like combat and the crafting system), but its primary focus is exploring, discovery, and puzzle-solving. That doesn't lend itself to much replay value, but I don't think every game should HAVE to worry about that. An excellent experience you only get once is still excellent.
@@Inimitablessj But Botw and totk are designed to be very replayable. No one playthrough is remotely the same. With your prior knowledge, you will play through the game entirely differently everytime. It's just that it is a very very long game. So, unless you only have these games to play for a long time or have to make content for it, a second playthrough is kinda unlikely. Also, a lot of us tend to try to 100% every game and that also leaves little room for a second run.
I actually had a WORSE experience with ToTK because in BoTW EVERYTHING was new, fresh and exciting to discover
meanwhile ToTK has the cool Depths and gorgeous but semi-empty Sky but land Hyrule feels like 90% identical and is nearly as exciting to discover for the 2nd time
imo BoTW >> ToTK
@@goldmemberpbwho tries to 100% an open world game?
I could say the same about the elder scrolls Morrowind, played it, got into it, but didn't want to go back to it until I started blood moon.
That is not an indicator of quality, the comment is basically saying that after you finished the game you finished the game.
I suspect the death threats et cetera also stems from gamers having seen otherwise good games get blasted by reviewers, either as too hard, not what they wanted, too much water, whatever, and this impacts the game's bottom line, which in turn impacts the studio's lifespan and the chances of getting more games like it. It's a clear over-reaction, and it hardly needs to be pointed out that literal death threats are inexcusable, but I can almost follow the logic. To paraphrase MandaloreGaming, 'I hate to see a game showing up in a decade on a review site that initially gave it a bad review, telling us it was a hidden gem and that we all just didn't appreciate it.'
There are numerous people in the games industry as well salty at totk's perfect reviews. "Why does TOTK get perfect reviews despite it having X problem while my game get docked points for having the same problem?"
I feel like if even at all, best way to give out review scores is the way ACG does it - instead of numeric scale, he gives opinions on whether the game would be worth paying full price, be ok but wait for a sale or stay away in different postcode and don't even look in the general direction
I think Yahtzee's a bit hung up on 10/10 meaning perfect. You can have approximately 1 tenth of all games be 10/10 and that would still be a sensible rating system. Or maybe 1 eleventh since there's also 0. Anyway it's a whole number. There are multiple games for each number.
I agree with everything else really, it was just annoying me that he's like "10/10 has to mean perfect"
I hate that take, Yahtzee been doing this for too long to still think 10/10 means perfect, that’s such a childish way of looking at it.
On the other hand, if you get really, _really_ angry at the prospect of something getting _less_ than a perfect score, does it not follow that you think it's perfect? Giving something a 10/10 may not mean perfect, but expecting all scores to be a 10/10 at least heavily implies it.
@@jemolk8945 He's right that people shouldn't be haranguing media outlets for giving less than 10/10. He's wrong that 10/10 necessarily means a perfect score. These are two separate points.
@@BatmanAoD My point is that the people who insist that a particular game should never get less than a 10/10 _do_ seem to think that the game is perfect. A game that gets a few 10/10 scores alongside others that are 9/10 or similar, a game on which it is seen as legitimate to disagree over whether a 10/10 is deserved, can be merely brilliant or a masterpiece. A game that can never be given anything less, by anyone, period, must be perfect. It's the difference between "I think this game merits a 10/10" and insisting that anyone who gives it less could only be doing so for ulterior reasons. Someone not being head over heels for a masterpiece is -- or should be -- understandable. For _everyone_ to give a game a perfect score, without any disagreement, the expectation _there_ is a perfect game.
@@jemolk8945...yeah, I know, I said Yahtzee is right about that part.
I've always taken review scores to be more about how much the game achieved everything it was trying to do. Yes better games than Mario 3 exist, but it still gets full marks from me because I can't think of anything more to ask from it, nothing I wanted to see that it didn't deliver (and was possible at its time.) With a game like Tears of the Kingdom, it's just so big and promises so much that actually delivering on everything it promises adequately is almost impossible.
As for the fervor around review scores, I can't really speak for other games in the series, but Tears got a lot more negative feedback than Yahtzee wants to admit. I saw a handful of 3/10s and that just baits controversy. There's also the state of the industry in general that can add extra layers of insult to things. If a grindy, exploitative, dangerous and all around boring looter shooter with microtransactions and battle passes and everything wrong with the industry can get an equal or higher score than Tears of the Kingdom, which to many represents everything right with the industry, then what does that tell us?
All gaming media outlets should replace review scores with the old 'describe yourself in 3 words' sort of thing
3:49 Funny, as "milked" is exactly what my thoughts are on TotK. It feels very surface in its gratification, and almost made for people to make silly "look at the mech I made" videos about.
Linkara from atop the 4th wall has a great term for fanboy behavioir like that. Fan entitlement. Feeling so connected to something that they have a sort of ownership themselves. And usually has toxic results. Look at all the starwars controversies involving jake lloyd and ahmed best. Or any fanbase that reacts to anything negative with cyber bullying and death threats
"Do you Recommend : Yes/No" is the correct system.
Not really, since it’s perfectly possible to require a qualifier to your recommended. ‘Recommend if you prefer gameplay over story’ ‘recommend if you don’t mind bugs’ or ‘recommend if you played and enjoyed the previous game(s)’ are all perfectly reasonable and important points to make. A binary rating system doesn’t work for games more complex than pong
@@emilybarclay8831 that is what makes it the correct system. its meaningless with out the reading the review since its a glorified conclusion which does not pretend to be otherwise.
Whenever discussing game critiquing with my less involved in the industry friends I always like to use a saying. "Media, isn't consumed in a vacuum".
The moment in time a piece is released can be just as informative of it's ultimate reception as the actual quality of the product. This is also partly why we refer to certain games as "not aging well". Standards applied to the game at the time developed away from what was the "norm" then. This can be seen in the terrible early 3D cameras of N64 classics like Mario 64, or indeed LoZ's own Ocarina of Time. Another example is quick time events. When RE4 released in the early 2000s, these were reverred as a fantastic way to keep a player engaged during cutscenes. By the end of the 2000s though, as gaming technology and what we could do with cinematography in these games reached the point where these became more of a crutch, rather than a creative choice.
All of this is to say, review scores are also flawed because they will always contain bias of the time. We should be willing to constantly re-evaluate games we have such high praise for in order to learn why they were successful in the first place, and how similar games might improve in the future.
The fact that people get some upset as to threaten others for not giving high enough review scores is not only logically unsound broadly, but also hamstrings their own cause. If they wish for Legend of Zelda to be the best, they should be willing to scrutinize it like it's the best.
Breath of the Wild represented a massive shift in the Zelda franchise. For that and it's developments in creative puzzle building, it was a wonderful game. Though certainly not perfect.
Tears of the Kingdom on the otherhand seems perfectly content with towing the line set by it's predecessor. Even with minor shifts it's still ultimately the same kind of game as BotW. And in that regard, it doesn't move far forward. So while yes, it technically has "more" than BotW, it means ultimately less at this point in time than BotW did in 2017. As such, even though the game may be "objectively" (I use quotes because that phrase itself is always suspect) better than it's predecessor, for it's lack to move the franchise forward in any meaningful way and inability to do anything new or interesting with it's characters I would consider it an inferior game to BotW.
Ask more from your games. A low review score is not a damnation necessarily, but it is ALWAYS an invitation to do better.
2:09 Reminds me of when the stepladder item from Zelda 1 was a weapon in Hyrule Warriors as one of Shiek's harps.
I still really like Zelda games, but I'm gonna be honest, I didn't like BotW. There were superficial things I liked about it. I liked that Link was more customizable, I liked how Hyrule was more of a scattering of villages building off the ruins of a once great kingdom, I liked that Zelda had more depth. I, however, didn't like that weapons were as brittle as sticks and didn't like the hundreds of shrines. How people thought it was so amazing and got so defensive is just beyond me when it felt sub-par in comparison to previous titles.
Wind Waker was cool cause any island was a little adventure of its own. Maybe it'll be a great fairy fountain, maybe it'll be an island with a mini game on it. Even if it had nothing, it was still cool to fill out the map.
The shrines were so samey that I only remember them as get to the thing, solve the thing, or kill the thing. BotW just felt like Diet Dark Souls to me with irritating side dungeons attached to it like a cancerous growth; which only made me want to go and play Dark Souls instead.
I think Yahtz is overthinking it on why people are so protective of LoZ when the real answer is teenagers.
Nintendo fans, especially teenage ones, are hyper insecure about their chosen console since Nintendo is perceived as the “kiddie games” provider because teenagers equate maturity to having graphic violence and vulgarity. In high school, admitting to liking anything that dares to be colorful and whimsical is basically equivalent to saying “I binge watch Peppa Pig”.
Legend of Zelda is the closest thing mainline Nintendo games have to a “mature” game by this standard since its artsy and violent and is therefore the only Nintendo game a teenager can afford admit to liking. So they look to it for validation. They NEED it to be perceived as perfect because if it isn’t then the one excuse they have for owning a “kiddie console” crumbles.
this is a phenomena with other fanbases, even subfanbases of any existing work, just seems Zelda is one of the few cases when it gets especially loud.
I feel as though that's a very specific subset of the group in question but I appreciate the comedic bluntness of your prose and shall therefore hit this with a like.
Not sure if Zelda is the only Nintendo franchise like that, there is Metroid, but otherwise solid observation
Id say it's mostly young adults who grew up playing Nintendo games in their childhood
Put it this way: Opinions, feelings, and/or perspectives can change over time (positively, negatively, both, or neither), but review scores are merely snapshots of an individual's opinions, feelings, and/or perspectives at a singular point in time (respectively). Review scores don't necessarily take into account that the reviewer's opinion, perspective, etc may have changed since the point when they posted the review in question.
"The only rating system that makes any sense is the Little Man of the San Franciscio Chronicle, who is seen (1) jumping out of his seat and applauding wildly; (2) sitting up happily and applauding; (3) sitting attentively; (4) asleep in his seat; or (5) gone from his seat.
I cringe when people say, "How could you give that movie four stars?" I reply, "What in my review did you disagree with?" Invariably, they're stuck for an answer. One thing I try to do is provide an accurate account of what you will see, and how I feel about it. I cannot speak for you. Any worthwhile review is subjective. If we completely disagree, my words might nevertheless be useful or provocative. If you disagree with what I write, be my guest. If you disagree with how many stars I gave it, you can mail your opinion to where the sun don't shine."
-Roger Ebert, You Give Out Too Many Stars
I wish there was a way to prosecute death threats without turning the internet into an even more dystopian surveillance state than it already is. It's just maddening to see this behavior 'normalized'
This may very well be my point in my video gaming life, but with how much grift, hype, and disappointment in many high-profile brands, it’s nice when a game actually delivers and has excellent consistency for a good quality product. It feels like these days that has become increasingly hard to come by.
The subtitles are super messed up, cause the entire script appears in the first few seconds and then we get no subtitles for the rest of the video.
As a lifelong pkmn player and a critic, it's is eyeopening to see it's all nintendo fans, not just pkmn fans that suck.
I think its an obvious falacy to frame most review scores as 10/10 = perfect. As noted by other commenters it usually means the website is giving it a full recommendation to play with no caveats.
there's a lot of winging about review scores but i don't really agree. i think if something stands out as a groundbreaking and worthwhile work of art to a reviewer then giving it a 10 is fine. I don't think there should be so many decimal points and a four or five star system like movies would be fine but at the end of the day yeah it's all just made up anyway. a game score shouldn't be just adding up all the successes and faults in a game; it should be a representation of the reviewer's subjective overall experience playing a game. if it feels like a 10, it's a 10, even if yeah there are some minor hiccups or something. Elden Ring, RDR2, TOTK, Silent Hill 2, Super Metroid, Portal, Dark Souls . Those are all 10s to me, but that doesn't mean that i can't look at each one and point out things I thought were annoying or didn't work. Getting a 10 doesn't imply nothing can ever be better than that game, just when it came out it represented something remarkable to the person who reviewed it. The whole 10 means perfect thing is a myth and is something that literally only exists in game reviews. No one is questioning a movie critic giving a movie 5 stars by asking "what so you think it's perfect and nothing can get better?!".
Where I think the problem really lies is review aggregates, and that's the case across mediums, because they essentially try to create some form of objective truth out of a collection of arbitrary and unstandardized scores, and then people argue and get up in arms about these numbers as if they really express some sort of objective reality of what is and is not worthwhile. I understand the desire for humans to categorize, put things in boxes, and rank things, but I honestly feel that the world would be better if metacritic, rotten tomatoes, IMDB and all the rest didn't exist.
What I got out from this video is that I need to check that perfect C64 game I've never heard about before today and whose name I've already forgotten.
My guess as to a partial reason Zelda has passionate fans is that there hasn't really been a proper bad Zelda game (not counting CDI of course(though I hear Skyward Sword was a weak point, though I hear most qualms were covered by the rerelease so it's less bad game and more clunky in places). However that doesn't entirely explain it, as there hasn't exactly been a bad GTA game or God of War game that's been a black mark on their respective series. But unlike those series, Zelda hasn't really had many games that try to copy its style. Zelda also doesn't fall into a repeating pattern too much so you avoid the "Ugh another one" like Assassin's Creed garners. The core is often similar, but it often iterates enough to keep itself fresh, be it art style, navigation, mechanics, whatever. Plus it has just enough world building and characters to sink your teeth into it if you're into the fanart side of things.
So you end up with this consistently high quality series that remains fresh from installment to installment both due to itself and lack of market saturation, with enough substance to earn investment in the events portrayed within, in a sweetspot that's not too kiddy but also not too adult so you can present it in polite company without coming across as vulgar or quaint.
Though I suppose that's moreso why Zelda's held up as a hallmark of gaming rather than why fans are particularly passionate about its perfection. That I don't really have an explanation for.
Also I can concur about the review scores. I think if you're going to do scores, you should have things separated by aspect so you can provide a more nuanced perspective. How good is the music, the gameplay, the story, etc. Helps for those that care about one or the other at the very least.
I feel like the "Zelda can do no wrong" trend didn't really start booming until BotW though. Like you mentioned, the entire fandom agrees that Skyward Sword is very much a weakpoint in the franchise. And Wind Waker got a lot of negative responses to the artstyle on release until people actually played the game and it changed their minds. There are plenty of people who will say that OoT or Majora's Mask are their all time favorite games, but most won't claim they're perfect.
Meanwhile, BotW is often touted as the pinnacle of gaming. It has by far the most toxic fanbase I've seen out of all the zelda games when it comes to defending their game from critiques, to the point where some people are convinced the game invented the stamina wheel and gliding, amongst other open world mechanics.
As for review scores, I thoroughly agree that they should be done by category. Games are just too wildly different from each other that saying "I gave this game an 82" means nothing. You could have an 82 game with beautiful and an engaging storyline that plays like a walking sim but makes up for it with the characters and the story. And you can have an 82 game with super low-res pixely graphics and no story, but a super addicting gameplay loop. Without categories, an 82 only means "this game isn't full of bugs and issues that would make you hate playing it."
@@lunarazure9969 A big issue is that they're at least 60% new fans who have not played a TLoZ game before, and you know what happens when a fandom becomes too big. That also explains why issues got buried under the rug; I guarantee you BotW would only get a 8.5-9/10 nowadays because it's an amazing open world game but has bad Zelda dungeons and lore.
One of the problems with percentile review scores is the lack of error margins.
Review scores are not meaningless. If a game gets 10/10s across the board, it mean, for that time, it was the best possible game and it was worth the money. it doesn't mean it doesn't have any flaws, or it can't be improved upon. it means it is a masterpiece of the time. As time goes on, the standards will change and the games once regarded as the best will not be that anymore.
3:47 No it's only been milked for a couple of radio broadcast series of mini-adventures, a fraction of a Wii Sports spinoff with crossbows that never appeared in any of the games (but for some reason later on Linkle dual wielded crossbows in Hyrule Warriors: Legends and Complete Edition), two Dynasty Warriors spinoffs, a gameshow (Tetra's Trackers), whatever the hell the Tingle games are supposed to be, a trio of games for an overglorified CD video player, the third of which being an FMV game, a Crypt of the Necrodancer spinoff and some weird spinoff that revolves around costumes. No, Tri-Force Heroes is NOT a main series game no matter how much Shikata and Aonuma want it to be.
People dont understand what a 10/10 means, it doesn't mean its perfect, it means its a masterpiece work and some of the the best the medium has to offer. For example even a masterpiece painting will have numerous imperfections. I can name 10 things that Totk does poorly, its combat is average, enemy variety is shockingly bad, there are like 5 bosses repeated hundreds of times. Given the budget, voice acting should be present which would add a lot more to the world and immersion and they can trim out pages of unnecessary excessive dialogues which can be annoying and repetitive, open world is barren with the most fun to be had in the shrines, depths is repetitive with similar mines and yiga clan outposts scattered throughout etc.
But it doesn't mean that its not one of the most emergent games ever made, that fuse mechanic is unbelievable, the freedom to solve any puzzle whatever way you like using physics and building contraptions is unprecedented and ground breaking. The freedom in exploration with verticality where there are endless ways to "win", "solve" or reach any location is liberating. The sense of exploration and discovering something unique is there right until you put the controller down. The moment to moment gameplay where you are figuring out how to transport or move from point A to B or solve a problem puts you in a mind space like no other game can. If you have the materials you can make a transport device, sling it with a catapult, or attach a rocket or make a hot air ballon, or use the numerous tools the game provides in whatever way you can think of to solve it in your unique way. Its an amazing feeling and a true sandbox experience. And that makes it a masterpiece and one of the best games ever. Now you can like one game more than the other, like I still like some of the fromsoftware games more than Zelda TOTK, even Witcher 3 is a better experience IMO but they all can be 10/10 experiences and masterpieces because Zelda is right there and then it comes down to personal preferences.
Damn...
I gotta play Mayhem in Monsterland.
I've been running into this issue myself, but I've been finding asking constant perfection is a foolish way to look at any art form & can active hurt it.
I'm a narrative major & I find it very hard to talk to people about storytelling because of this, giving me only two ways to talk about a story that being either good or bad, if anything falls in the middle it's a nightmare to talk about.
This Zelda's story dips heavily into very basic fantasy tropes, a lot of it comes across it being a very rushed narrative. Like Nintendo falls back into using the character Zelda as a plot progression device, even in minor side quests Link is told Zelda was seen yet the full narrative shows that's BS, thus wasting narrative time.
Here's the thing when People are enjoying themselves, they don't care if the story has issues, people don't care unless it's extremely broken. This is a video game first (with amazing game play), Nintendo has made it very clear story isn't their priority. It's very unreasonable to demand Nintendo poor more resources into an area where only a few nerds will notice & isn't there strength.
There was a study done years back that showed people that have things they like criticized take it as a personal attack, as if it is they who are being criticized. These people are basically using Zelda and liking it as some kind of personality trait and any criticism toward the franchise is a personal slight. It's very weird.
There is actually a lot more potential to the weapon fusing than Yahtzee may realize. There's the obvious monster parts for damage, but there's also elemental options, rocks to break rubble, wooden boards to make fans, all the Zonai tech options, *other weapons,* etc...
It's so much potential I keep forgetting and just defaulting to my strongest monster parts 😅
Bonus: you can fuse a minecart to your shield so you can skateboard freely on any surface! Even flat ones!
Doesn't that say there is no reason to use those other features when you can just kill the enemy?
Especially if you can Autobuild a Shock, Flame, or Ice emitter on a Roomba doing that element stuff for you?
@@Buglin_Burger7878 That is 1 way to do it. But is it the most fun way for everyone? Of course not! And that's the point. Everyone can have a fun way to do this stuff in this game.
@@Buglin_Burger7878 "Adding all sorts of fun and goofy options for weapon combinations is pointless actually, because people could just ignore all of them and choose to do things the boring way!"
That is what you sound like.
Honestly that more insane fusion mechanic sounds cool but I can definitely see how that would take way too long to make it work properly on top of ultrahand. We'd have never got totk at that rate
Honestly it sounds like a horribly glitchy mess having Link attached to something that will just get caught on everything else. Fuse is much more useful in combat while the physics messing around stuff is perfect for just Ultrahand that could be used in battle as well but not stuck to your hand to get you caught on everything.
@@higurashikai09 I can definitely see that happening, but that's what I mean by "it would take too long". I doubt nintendo would release totk in such a state under any circumstances
@@n3y I mean, the game got delayed 1 year precisely because they wanted to fix almost every bug easily accessible. Meanwhile pokémon releases a broken mess who sells like hotcakes.
TotK and RDR2 both share a strange place in my heart where they're some of my favorite games of all time but I'll be the first person to point out the glaring flaws in them. Its because I love them so much that those flaws are so much more noticeable to me, because they're obviously holding them back from being what *could* be perfect experiences.
I don't think a 10/10 or even a 100% score means the game could not possibly be improved. It means that in terms of relative quality and strength of recommendation, it ranks well within the top 1% (for 10/10) and 0.1% (for 100%) of all physically published and/or popular video games ever made. Which means Elden Ring and TOTK absolutely deserve a 10/10 and 100% numerical score despite having clear room for improvement. A new game would have to outdo them to earn the same score at a later time, hence why Ocarina of Time, Shadow of the Collossus, and Half Life 1 are 10/10s for thier day and age.
It's ranking the game's quality relative to all other available/reviewed games, not a seal of achieving perfection. That's why people feel that games which are probably the best all-round games yet made by human hands deserve to be given the best review scores possible. Like an Olympic gold medal, it signifies that they're the best in the current competition (and not that they're absolutely perfect).
i cant be the only one having to put the video at x1.25 speed just because it feels wrong hearing Yahtzee talk at a normal pace
In Japan, for reviews of restaurants on Google Maps, they give places 3/5 if it met their expectations, higher if it exceeded, and lower if it failed. I think that approach would be good for game review scores as well - it would also let us know what each different reviewer focuses more on, since expectations are subjective.
When I first saw those ratings I thought Japanese society was just harsh on reviewing things generally, but now knowing about the logic behind it, their way actually makes a lot more sense than giving everything that's vaguely good maximum points.
But what do you do when it's an unknown quantity and you have no expectations?
The problem with this is that people go to a restaurant to eat good food, so there's already an implicit standard that's easy to parse. No two people necessarily play a video game for the same reason or with the same expectations. Isn't treating video games like products or services part of the problem of why games still aren't taken all that seriously as art?
It's not necessarily a perfect system, but given that review scores are likely to always be a thing, at least encouraging a consistent system based on subjective expectations is better than having everyone figure out their own wildly varying metrics for how "good" a game is out of 10.
On the note of games as art, games are not all purely art. I'm pretty sure Yahtzee talks about it at some point - most video games will still be in some sense a product and I think that's not only fine, it's necessary.
Graphic novels occupy a similar space, and in the same sense you could review them based on expected quality of art, but if the story is a profound in a certain way but still fails the expectations of many (maybe based on what reviewers expected from the author's previous work) and get low scores, that in itself would be the context to which you could justify ignoring the score.
That would solve Yahtzee's problems with lack of context in the current approach with review scores. It would be a system widely agreed to be subjective in nature, which would discourage useless arguments over objective quality that the current system incites.
Lots of people get the percentage review concept wrong, especially on Rotten Tomatoes. A 76% review score does not mean the game is 76% good, it means that it received 76% positive reviews, which depending on your system can mean anything from a 6/10 to a 10/10. IMO that’s still a valid way to get a pulse on the game’s subjective quality.
As for never giving out 10s for “wiggle room” in the case that something better comes out, I think that premise is faulty to start with. Yes games can be better than others, to individuals on a subjective level. But the rating system should not be used to categorize and rank every game ever from 1 to 8,769. We must think of each rating as the game in a vacuum. “Did this game achieve everything it set out to do, and does the user find all of that entertaining?” Is a much more useful metric to rate artwork. This allows for dozens of 10s to coexist without having to argue about which was the better game.
I have an idea. Logarithmic scale of grading. This way numerical score can be more precise. A 9 with a 10 would have bigger difference than they do now.
I also thought the weapon system would be like you described. Because in the end it is just stats, with a physical appearance and sometimes some specific special pre programmed special properties.
but that's what all crafting systems are
Stats and usually some pretty ugly weapons.
I liked being a "swordsman" in BOTW. Bow, Sword. Now I'm a "Rock-on-a-stickman" or "monster-horn-on-hiltman" very few weapon combos are visually pleasing. Although I do like the Black Boko Boss on a Royal Claymore combo for the ridiculous battle axe it creates.
@@chrisbennett113 , but that's what he argued in the video. If it was something more reliant on the physics (like the rest of the crafting in the game), it would have been cooler.
@@AHungryHunky Some of the combos synergise well you have to experiment than only making boulder sword or whatever. Lizalfos horn and sword will give a katana for example, it's amazing
There some cool combinations, but not enough. After enough hours you'll have seen everything.
I completely agree, who cares about review scores, no score is actually better and i prefer it. That said i dont think anyone should view 10/10 as 'cant be improved upon' or perfect, for me it just means 'must buy regardless of preference'.
Saying that fusing things to weapons merely raises attack is selling it very short, imo. You can get pretty creative with it. Attaching a rocket to your weapon lets you launch it when you throw it, attaching a spring will catapult enemies away, all the different materials have a bunch of different properties, I bet there's a ton of stuff you can do with it that hasn't even been discovered yet.
Even just the fact that you can make your own elemental weapons using gems is really cool.
There's also a ton of different effects for arrows.
Fusing stuff to your shields can basically turn them into weapons or tools. Like, if you fuse a spring to a shield and then initiate a shield surf, the spring will launch you into the air. You can do the same with a bomb flower.
It's all very intuitive and things act the way you expect them to.
I think they did a great job with it.
There is a game called The World is Your Weapon where you can wield nearly anything. You can, for instance, pick up and throw a building.
isn't it somewhat arbitrary to say that 10/10 means you can never like a game more than it? I don't think TotK is perfect, I don't even own a Switch, but let's say someone gives it a 10/10 and the next Zelda comes along and they think it's even better. Couldn't they just give it 10/10 as well with the notion that review scores are contemporary, that a 10/10 means it's the best game you can think of at the time of the review? So a 10/10 beats another 10/10 if it is newer.
Honestly Elden Ring is what taught me that Review scores are meaningpess all of the tens it got which i feel it earend convinced millions of people that a game they never were going to like because good art dosent equate to something for everyone but equates to doing what it sets out to do well
I really feel that. I played until I beat Margit the Fell but uninstalled it soon after because the victory didn't feel nearly as impactful as I thought it would, even after failing at what must have been 200 times because I suck at From Software games.
It probably doesn't help that I've played plenty of old-school RPGs from before my time like Dragon Quest 2 and that, while it is good that there is still at least one "triple A" franchise that is extremely hard for those that want the challenge, there are quite a few games that are oftentimes more difficult/rewarding than From Software's stuff if you're open to retro RPGs.
@@KrisBailey what you said
Yathzee wants Tears of the Kingdom's weapon to by anything combined with anything on the fly (Paraphrasing)? Clearly Dead Rising is missing it's opportunity!
Remembering how the Commodore 64 games looked like, that Mayhem in Monsterland thing does indeed look pretty dope.
I wasnt a fan of botw, but for some reason I can't put totk down. Wind Waker will always be my favorite Zelda.
I just wish the story wasnt so boring. All the characters are incredibly flat. All of them pretty much have only one charcter trait. It doesnt help either that the plot basicly repeats itself 4 times and then ends shortly after. Also I dont know if this is just a personal opinion, but I thought Zelda lacked charisma and gravitas. Her lines and voice always sounded kinda weak to me.
I used to be one such fanboy, obsessing over things that I was passionate about that others thought was embarassing or sub-par, and I would harshly defend myself so that I didn't feel stupid for liking said things. I can't remember specifically when that part of me changed, but it did. I started to not care all that much about what people negatively thought about my interests or whether it made me look like a child or not, because 1, I had bigger and more important things to worry about like a fucking job and supporting my family of 5, and 2, I just became more lax as a person. And not soon after, I learned to subsequently accept people that liked things that *I* didn't because it made them happy.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that review scores shouldn't be seen as a dictating "be-all-end-all" of whether you should be able to enjoy something or not, because like Yahtzee said, it's all subjective. It's okay to like what you wanna like and you shouldn't let other people try to tear you down and make you feel "inferior" because they don't like it. But at the same time, just because you like something that other's don't, accept that they have their own opinion and don't be a twat and fight them on it just so that they share your opinion, because then you're doing the opposite.
There once was a game with the selling point of using anything as a weapon that introduced weapon combos in the sequel. It was called Dead Rising and was quite fun.
10/10 doesn't mean perfect. It just means it's a masterpiece. It's better than any game should be expected to be. No game is perfect. I'd also push back on the idea that the story in TotK wasn't good. I was genuinely moved several times, even teared up, which is more than I can say for many games with so called "good stories".
I completely agree, I liked the story a lot for what it was. And I also share your view on the scoring thing. Imo perfection basically does not exist, it's pointless for 10/10 to mean "literally flawless". Like you, I view a 10/10 as being a masterpiece, as good as any game can be. And for me TotK is absolutely that.
Yeah if a 10/10 meant perfect there would literally never be a 10/10 game
I have seen this with some Zelda fans getting obsessed with Elden Ring, which is another game that has been held up as an "exemplar". But what I have seen is that they actually don't like that other games might outshine Zelda.
I see that same attitude with straight up FromSoft fans, unfortunately. If you even breathe a critical word toward Elden Ring, get ready for an entire dissertation on why it's the single greatest piece of art ever made that can do no wrong. Same with FFXIV fans... and Hollow Knight fans... etc etc. Lovely games, but dang are the fanbases awful when it comes to drinking the simp Kool-Aid.
Yahtzee Mayhem was the best game for the C64. That's why the C64 was allowed to die. It fulfilled it's purpose.
Review scores are not meaningless. They're imprecise when viewed in the singular, or even by the handful. But in aggregate, getting enough people to rank or otherwise attempt to quantify their opinion on something often up yielding results that can be usefully predictive in the right context. If you have enough people giving honest ratings, then outliers get drowned out, and the score ends up becoming a fairly good predictor of how much any given person will enjoy the game.
Obviously, the person's subjective enjoyment will deviate somewhat from the aggregate score, but that is just how statistics work. Just because not everyone falls under the same part of the bell curve doesn't mean bell curves are meaningless or useless.
And the alternative is listening to single people give a description and criticism weighed down subjectivity and the person's idiosyncrasies.
The result is of extremely limited usefulness to the audience, because they are not just deciding whether to buy and play the game, they are deciding whether to do so over myriad other games that they could buy and play instead. Without ratings, it is much more difficult to compare games.
So no, ratings are not meaningless.
That being said, there's exceptions. TLOU2 is with a relatively objective view, an average 6/10 because its writing the game heavily relies on falls flat, specially if you played the first, but because it was a heavily political game it got 10/10 from almost everyone because it was a way of defending their ideals. People did not like it when it won GoTy because it wasn't worth the award (specially the narrative one), it was way too divisive to deserve it.
When in marching band they would review every completion based on points. Usually the first person yo perform started the average. If you were better you got more points than the previous. If you were worse you got less. It meant a 77 in one competition was a win but a 124 points in another was 3rd place. That could be a better review method on a yearly basis.
You can't rate a game for "how good is this" based on whatever fantasy possibility exists in your head. No game would ever get higher than 2/10 and that is generous.
The rating is a recommendation, and yeah I think 10 is granular enough to express that thought.
There was a war movie podcast called ‘Friendly Fire,’ where the hosts would rate each movie they reviewed independent of all other films. They did this by picking an object from that film that they felt represented the film, and would use that as their rating system. For example, for the film ‘A Bridge Too Far,’ they rated it from one to five wood and canvas boats.
Agreed, I'd give the review process of using numerical score a 6/10. It helps to put a number to it, because now you can compare two qualitatively different things, but sometimes apples and oranges really can't be compared.
I agree that too many people get bogged down in the minutiae of individual video game scores, but I don't believe that makes them irrelevant. My personal style for evaluating games is that I have one source whose reviews I read thoroughly to get their take on the pros/cons of the game, then I check an aggregator to see if the score of the review I read was outside the standard deviation of the general populace. If numbers weren't given in reviews, I'd have to read more reviews to see if my main source was just an outlier. So it saves me time.
I'm not calling it a science, but it works for me.
the subjective nature of something as conceptually concrete as a review score is what makes it irrelevant. a review score must have designated contextual information given by its reviewer to be viewed in a reasonable manner. however, the existence of such context (of which can vary drastically) devalues the existence of a review score.
two games can be the same score for different reasons or different scores for the same reason, which is antithetical to how a concrete review system is meant to work.