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

[Euphoria14]

Wyrdness said:

Euphoria14 said:

ZenfoldorVGI said:
I also believe this. If massively hyped games kinda live up to AAA status, they are praised as the second coming and over-rated. If they don't, they are flamed to hell and under-rated.

I believe if 3DDH had been a Zelda game, it would not have lived up to AAA expectations, and gotten an even lower review than 3DDH actually got.

I think the best use for metacritic is for games like 3DDH where the community is only moderately hyped, and the game gets fewer review scores based on predisposition and hype.

If you DO make a game that is a direct copy of another game, especially one from years and years ago, you need to make sure your game is at least as good as the game you are trying to copy, if you expect AAA reviews. Translated, that means don't try to copy one of the best games ever made and expect favorable comparisons.

The implication of this thread is that 3DDH is as good as Zelda, but Zelda is just rated higher because of its name. That's total bullshit. 3DDH is nowhere close in quallity to an actual console Zelda title, and even the most devout PS3 zealots(and every reviewer) will tell you that if they've ever actually played one.

Are you basing this on the 3D Zeldas? 2D Zelda is a completely different beast than the 3D Zelda's.

What would you be saying if this game was on the DS? Because if it was it wouldn't be a whole lot different from say Phantom Hourglass or the Oracle games. Especially the Oracle games.

Just because something is old school doesn't mean it is bad. Look at Lost Odyssey Metascore compared to user reviews if you need to understand where I am coming from. The game is rated 79 I believe and many believe it is the best JRPG this generation and one of the best to come in to home consoles in quite a while, even with a gameplay style that mimics the late 90's-early 2000's.

Now that is complete bull, the change in perspective for Zelda games has practically little significant changes to the games only difference is the 3d games can utlize more mechanics they're not completely different beasts at all, your JRPG example is a joke as well because JRPGs have been mediocre this gen. This isn't like 2d and 3d Mario where the is a big difference.

There is a big difference between old school 2D and new 3D styles Zelda's.

 

JRPG's have been pretty mediocre, but when a game as great as Tales of Vesperia rated lower than 80 I notice a problem with the reviewers. That game is downright AWESOME, and don't be surprised when Xenoblade and Last Story get manhandled by the critics as well. I will be here to give you all a big "Told ya so" when it happens.

 

Back to the point though, the game had a plan, something it set out to do, a specific audience it set out to attract. Problem is that the game was rated based on who it DOESN'T attract, although to be fair many reviewers said that if you enjoy old school Zelda, which I do, add an extra 1.0-2.0.

I don't like that style of reviews, especially considering many don't read reviews these days, only the score.

 

My argument mimics that of the people who complain about people not rated "casual" games correctly and only rating them based on what the "hardcore" would expect.