By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Majora's Mask 3D is doomed to be critically panned...

Toxy said:

Exactly, it was by desing choice that this game was to have a lot of water.
Saying that they achieved said goal is bad, is bizarre.
As you point out with Omega Ruby having a different team based on fire is another good point, as this review weighs in both games with the same score.
So by one having more water and the other having more of a fire theme, by only playing/reviewing one and scoring both games as if they were the same still goes in line with this review being poorly made.

If it was done by an actual IGN journalist the score would have likely differed.
Some people like traversing water, some do not. This seems like a strangely biased review.
I do not rate Drama films because I do not like them. That being said I would not tell others not to watch this category of film, because they may actually like it.

There is a difference by rating something based on the mechanics or plot - and there is a difference with rating something based on your personal opinion and not the actual merit of said content.

It is similar to the 'it was too hard' rate it down mentality. If the game is meant to be hard and the mechanics are not cheap, this is a good thing. If it is hard due to design flaws, well this would be a negative.

That is just my two cents any ways.

There's so much weird here I don't know where to start. The reviewer is biased against... water? Biased reviews aren't "strange," that's what a review is. Their goal was to have too much water? Too much by definition means... too much! It means too much! That's bad! That's, like, inherently bad by definition of the phrase "too much."

This isn't someone reviewing a genre they don't like and the Pokemon games aren't built around the idea of having lots of water. The core mechanics of Pokemon are all about elemental rock-paper-scissors, and overpopulating a game with one type in particular throws the balance of the game off and is definitely worth criticizing.



Around the Network

TOO MUCH WATER!!! TOO MANY FISH!!!! TOO MUCH!!!!



Blob said:


Well the issue is the plenty of people are jsut pissed that a Nintendo game didnt get amazing scores lol. And it's hard to tell the dfference between people on the internet.

And yeah ive already pre-ordered the game and im going to enjoy it. I have all 700 and whatever pokemon aready so I pretty much play pokemon with repels anyway.


I could not care less what the game scores in reality.
Reviews are just the opinions of any given individual and opinions differ. 
This is a good thing. If everyone thought the same thing, about everything. Life would be quite boring.
You may as well just date yourself and record what you think and watch yourself, constantly hitting that repeat button so you can see what you think over and over again.

Any way... haha.

I hope you enjoy the game, as I know I will.

I sort of derailed my own thread in some sort of bizarre way.

So... um.

Wooo Majora's Mask. 



AZWification said:

Water wasn't an issue in Majora' Mask though...... For me at least.


I call it water phobia.



the_dengle said:
Toxy said:

Exactly, it was by desing choice that this game was to have a lot of water.
Saying that they achieved said goal is bad, is bizarre.
As you point out with Omega Ruby having a different team based on fire is another good point, as this review weighs in both games with the same score.
So by one having more water and the other having more of a fire theme, by only playing/reviewing one and scoring both games as if they were the same still goes in line with this review being poorly made.

If it was done by an actual IGN journalist the score would have likely differed.
Some people like traversing water, some do not. This seems like a strangely biased review.
I do not rate Drama films because I do not like them. That being said I would not tell others not to watch this category of film, because they may actually like it.

There is a difference by rating something based on the mechanics or plot - and there is a difference with rating something based on your personal opinion and not the actual merit of said content.

It is similar to the 'it was too hard' rate it down mentality. If the game is meant to be hard and the mechanics are not cheap, this is a good thing. If it is hard due to design flaws, well this would be a negative.

That is just my two cents any ways.

There's so much weird here I don't know where to start. The reviewer is biased against... water? Biased reviews aren't "strange," that's what a review is. Their goal was to have too much water? Too much by definition means... too much! It means too much! That's bad! That's, like, inherently bad by definition of the phrase "too much."

This isn't someone reviewing a genre they don't like and the Pokemon games aren't built around the idea of having lots of water. The core mechanics of Pokemon are all about elemental rock-paper-scissors, and overpopulating a game with one type in particular throws the balance of the game off and is definitely worth criticizing.

I would like to sum this up by saying: 
I have been joking this whole time. I really do not care what the review said.
I just think the situation is funny.

Now lets all drink some chilled water. But not too much. You will drown and then you will die.



Around the Network

Well the joke's on you, because you wrote a lot more than me.



the_dengle said:
Well the joke's on you, because you wrote a lot more than me.


Haha true.
But we all know you are the true offender here. What with a water pokemon as your avatar and all ;)



nintendo should just cut their losses and cancel the game.



Who cares what they think? It's a 14 or so year old game now. I am not expecting magical upgrades. JUst majora mask on the go.



 

 

How can my boss expect me to come to work when the planet's surface is 7/10 water???
I didn't pay for this...



Have a nice day...