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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Issues with IGN's MM3D Score

 

Is IGN full of idiots?

Yes 228 67.66%
 
No 109 32.34%
 
Total:337

This thread is the EXACT reason why people are starting to ditch review scores. Nitpicking the numbers is a horrible waste of time. When they assign that number they're not listing every last thing that took points away. Even a game with no flaws still won't always be a 10 because it's judged by its overall fun level, which is subjective. They could have listed no faults at all and still given it that score and it would have been fine.

Seriously, people. Stop. These kinds of score squabbles are the reason I left IGN in the first place.



Currently playing:

Bloodbath Paddy Wagon Ultra 9

Around the Network
veritaz said:
ExplodingBlock said:


Persona 4 Golden got a 9.3

They also gave the Last of Us Remastered a 10


Persona 4 Golden has a ton of extra content that wasn't in the original and even new characters in the story. The Last of Us remastered is a game of the year edition that just came out on PS4 a year after the original release, not the same thing at all. Comparing that to a game that came out a decade and a half ago doesn't work. 

I'm not entirely sure why you mentioned this, since Majora's Mask 3D is a remake as well.  It may not have a huge amount of extra content, but there IS a considerable amount of it.  More than enough to be noticeable, and a lot of visual upgrades (albeit due to the original being 14 1/2 years old).  I'm not saying I agree with OP, but your reasoning doesn't quite match up. 



This is why review score numbers going away is a good thing, numbers always fucked around with the fanbase in the end.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

KingdomHeartsFan said:
ExplodingBlock said:


No because the give dumbass reasons for the cons 

Thats like giving a Mario game an 8.2 and the give only one con being "World 2-3"

Not even close to the same thing, MM only has 4 dungeons having one that's bad is pretty significant, Mario has like a hundred levels, having one that's bad is a tiny portion of the game.  


I just wanna ask, did you play the Great Bay Temple? It isn't even that bad, just a lot of people who haven't played it think it is. I also didn't see them taking points off for "Water Temple" in the OoT 3D review (Which was much worse)



The minus in the review doesn't translate to points being taken off. They have many many many games that get no negatives but don't get 10/10.



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

Around the Network
DerpSandwich said:
This thread is the EXACT reason why people are starting to ditch review scores. Nitpicking the numbers is a horrible waste of time. When they assign that number they're not listing every last thing that took points away. Even a game with no flaws still won't always be a 10 because it's judged by its overall fun level, which is subjective. They could have listed no faults at all and still given it that score and it would have been fine.

Seriously, people. Stop. These kinds of score squabbles are the reason I left IGN in the first place.

I personally think scores still have a place in reviews, just not in the form of numbers or grading (e.g. A, A+, B-).  I think how GameXplain does it is better, since it's a lot more clear than a "5" or an "8," which can be hard or impossible to decipher what it really means.  I think a lot of people want/need something that wraps up the entire review that tells the reader how, exactly, the reviewer felt about playing the game as a whole.

edit: I am aware that you probably meant what I said by "review scores."  I just wanted to clear it up.



ExplodingBlock said:
KingdomHeartsFan said:

Not even close to the same thing, MM only has 4 dungeons having one that's bad is pretty significant, Mario has like a hundred levels, having one that's bad is a tiny portion of the game.  


I just wanna ask, did you play the Great Bay Temple? It isn't even that bad, just a lot of people think it is. I also didn't see them taking points off for "Water Temple" in the OoT 3D review


Everyone has their own opinions.  Reviews are impossible to write without subjectivity.  Just because you liked it, doesn't mean the reviewer did.  Something you're also missing is that IGN has multiple reviewers.  They have different opinions, not everyone would review the same way.  Ocarina of Time 3D wasn't reviewed by the same person who did Majora's Mask 3D.



ExplodingBlock said:
sundin13 said:
Remakes tend to use a 9 point scale...


Persona 4 Golden got a 9.3

They also gave the Last of Us Remastered a 10

You're comparing a 15 year old game with a year old game. Different time, different standards. What may have been considered great back then may not be considered great today. The mechanics for P4:Golden & Last of Us were still fresh when they were remastered whereas some aspects of Majora Mask may have not aged well.



veritaz said:
ExplodingBlock said:


Well they give the original Majora's Mask a 9.9, so they took off 1.2 points for the exact same temple

Different people reviewing. One person thought the game was almost worth a 10 back then but another person right now thinks it's only worth a 8.7 which is very reasonable considering it's a very old game.

Very? It's only 15 years old.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

You can actually enjoy a game, not find any cons, and still find it average.

Maybe gameplay was average but not bad enough to mention any cons. Still average though. (example)