dany612 said: ugh lets go kill IGN lol jk

It's better than the score given by 1up. They must be in a flaming mood

Also, 9.5 is right. Because it isn't new

the only thing i hate in this game is Navi, that little fairy is fucking annoying "hey listen" "hey listen" how about "Hey piss off"

Ports have to be held to higher standards than original games, because they launch several years later, when more is expected of a game, and because really, there isn't going to be very much in a port that's new.

Torillian said: spurgeonryan said: But the  main reason they don't give it a 10 is because some of the graphics could have been re-done better! They did not do any tweeks to the music (although I believe it comes with the soundtrack?). IGN...it was a 10 back in 1998, now it is better, but you reduced the score? What else am I missing people, other than it is basically the same game on a new system. Remember some people have not seen it. You wouldn't give Star Wars a A- just because it was re-release with new scenes would you? Let's have a 17 year old who did not play the original rate this game and see what happens.   http://ds.ign.com/articles/117/1177020p1.html I'm a big proponent of the idea that a 10 in 1998 wouldn't necessarily be a 10 in 2011.  Gaming has changed and evolved since then and standards have moved forward.  Similar to how a late port usually gets a lower metacritic score even if it's only a few months old it seems that the remake didn't improve enough to make up the difference that 13 years has made to industry standards.  I'd have to play it myself to see if I agree.

i'm in the exact opposite boat.  take away todays pretty graphics and see how they do

there have been soo many great games i have played this gen that have less than par graphics and they got horrible reviews and there have been even more shitty games that i have played that had amazing graphics and good scores.

It seems a game gets docked a bunch for its graphics in reviews, yet doesn't get docked for bugs or gliches.  They just go "hope an update fixes this later"  its like wtf

irstupid said: i'm in the exact opposite boat.  take away todays pretty graphics and see how they do there have been soo many great games i have played this gen that have less than par graphics and they got horrible reviews and there have been even more shitty games that i have played that had amazing graphics and good scores. It seems a game gets docked a bunch for its graphics in reviews, yet doesn't get docked for bugs or gliches.  They just go "hope an update fixes this later"  its like wtf

I don't view that as the opposite boat, I definitely agree that games should be docked for bugs and glitches and that's why I prefer a score like ours for something like Fallout 3 over most review sites' scores.  Any game where I have to restart multiple times for getting inexplicably stuck in rocks just shouldn't get that high of scores.  

But I don't think that a game with glitches like that should get terrible scores like a 6 because in the end those are minor moments of the game that mar an otherwise great experience.

Wo! Actually I think that the score is higher than expect (and I'm happy). It'n not a new experience like it was in 1998.

didn't they give ocarina of time a 10/10 for the virtual console on the wii when it came out.

wonder what happened that made the n64 a 10/10, the virtual console a 10/10 and the 3ds a 9.5/10. what did 3ds make crappier

or is the not completely updated track worth a .5 deduction?

well the textures are great but the models could have used a bit more polygons. it does not bother me though but it will of course effect the score so if the system can do better then what has been done in the game they can't give it a perfect 10 in graphics so that will effect the end score

so very good score!

irstupid said: didn't they give ocarina of time a 10/10 for the virtual console on the wii when it came out. wonder what happened that made the n64 a 10/10, the virtual console a 10/10 and the 3ds a 9.5/10. what did 3ds make crappier or is the not completely updated track worth a .5 deduction?

I guess they review VC releases based on how they would have graded the original game at the time of release and not based on what's currently available at the time.  I would count that more as an incorrect way to review the VC release over incorrect for the 3DS.  

That's why we try to stay away from doing reviews for ports of old games released on VC or PSN, it's difficult to establish how to review it.  Either you have to review it based on current standards and it's going to get utterly crapped on in the graphics department or you try to remember all the way back to the standards for when it released which is dicey in itself.   

irstupid said: didn't they give ocarina of time a 10/10 for the virtual console on the wii when it came out. wonder what happened that made the n64 a 10/10, the virtual console a 10/10 and the 3ds a 9.5/10. what did 3ds make crappier or is the not completely updated track worth a .5 deduction?

All those three versions were reviewed by different reviewers.