If 3D Dot Game Heroes was an actual Zelda game...

[Euphoria14]

Khuutra said:

Euphoria14 said:

AdventWolf said:
I think it's true to say that the critic's response would not be universal, but instead some would rank it higher and some would rank it lower if it was indeed a Zelda game. If it truly was Zelda game I doubt it would have received any 50s or 60s except from maybe 1 or 2 bitter sources.

This is what I believe.

Some say that it copies a tired old formula, but just look at Pokemon. Almost everything in that game is unchanged since what, 1996, yet the game still gets great scores because it is Pokemon. I believe the same would hold true if this game was a true Zelda. Ok, maybe they add some stuff like battle towers and more Pokemon to collect, but it is the same exact walk through the grass, get into an old school turn based battle with the menu reading fight, item, special, etc... and battle your way to take on the Elite Four and become the Pokemon Master.

Why does it keep getting rated high even though the gameplay is over 10 years old? Because it is Pokemon.

People say that NSMBWii got hit hard for being a retro styled game, yet it is sitting at 87 on Metacritic and 88% on GameRankings.

If 3D Dot Game Heroes had no character creation and only had Link, Onyx became Ganon and Fuelle was the Dark Magician from LttP trying to revive Ganon while Zelda was magically transformed and then split into 3 fairies, this game would be sitting at 85+, I am sure of it, because the game is a lot of fun and plenty of the low scoring reviews do admit it is fun, but they drop the score for being like Zelda.

This my friends is why you do not trust review scores, because in my case I was looking for exactly what they hated it for.

Any self respecting Zelda fan should play this game, especially if they are a fan from way back when on the NES/SNES.

This ignores the problem of genre expectation on both ends. More, it ignores what may come down to a qualitative difference.

Pokemon is part of a very specific RPG niche, like Dragon Quest, where people do not expect changes that would be apparent to anyone who is not a huge follower of the series. Comparing Pokemon in terms of innovation is pointless, because the expectation of innovation is not there.

That expectation does exist, however, for Zelda and its ilk. What you saw leveled against 3DDGH was a measure of what would have been leveled against Zelda if Nintendo had had the audacity to release a LttP-style 2D adventure for full retail price on a home console. Scores would not be as harsh, maybe, but the surrounding critical dialogue would be absolutely corrosive and it would be the lowest-rated mainstream Zelda released in over twenty years (which is saying something with Spirit Tracks sitting at 87, largely for reasons already mentioned).

The NSMBWii example you cite only highlights the problem rather than countering it. A lot of the review dialogue centered around how it tried nothing new, played it too safe, in spite of hte fact that the game is a loving refinement of and homage to past game mechanics. That it has the score it does is testament to the fact that it's the most solidly-built 2D platformer in the business, regardless of whether or not reviewers saw it as being revolutionary or not (they didn't). NSMBWii was the most fun I had playing a game last year, is probably the best 2D platformer I've ever played, but that doesn't really matter much to reviewers in lieu of the fact that there is a genre expectation of innovation in platformers (apparently).

The premise here, that Nintendo titles are rated higher just because of the name, is fallacious.

Yeah but I find that to be a problem. Why should all games aimed to old school gamers like myself be pummeled?

In the case of NSMBWii, yeah it doesn't do much new, but it was easily one of the best games released last year because that kept it simple and they kept if fun, which is why I loved NES Zelda and SNES Zelda and why I love 3DDGH.

I still however feel that 3DDGH got beaten down a bit too hard. 20% of it's scores are below 80, with majority of those being 60's and (1) 50. Those reviewers blast it for being like Zelda, which to me is a horrible reason to make a game look bad, especially when that very thing is what the game set out to do!

 

I just don't understand reviewers these days, which is why I predicted it to get a 78, which in all honestly I thought was a bit high to expect.