As a former GameSpot employee, I thought I'd offer my perspective, since I know what the reviewers go through. Tom knows his stuff, is professional, and takes his role seriously. I'm also confident that, for such a big and beloved franchise, his score was thoroughly reviewed by his editors, and he had to convince him that he was right. To put it another way, he would have had to build a certain amount of consensus around his score. GameSpot puts the reviewer's name at the end of its reviews because they want to make clear that the review is the *site's* opinion, it just happened to be written by a single person.
Most of the people posting here haven't played the game yet. If you haven't and you are calling Tom an idiot, you're the definition of a fanboy - there's no other explanation. I personally love Zelda, don't care if it's formulaic, and will pick up this game regardless of the review. I expect/hope to disagree with Tom's opinion. But I'm willing to consider his perspective valid.
The world doesn't have to agree and I think the industry's monotony is part of the problem, I wish there was *less* of a herd mentality. The review world also agreed on GTA IV as a masterpiece, I thought it was interesting but wasn't fun, and there's no way I would've given it the scores others gave it - I think they got sucked up in the hype. Other M also got solid reviews and then suddenly people woke up and decided it wasn't that great. That can happen to any game - and until we play it, we don't know.
As for GS giving the original Zelda a 7.2, that's not quite true. They were reviewing it on the Wii version, and judging it by today's standards. If you wipe away nostalgia and play that game as a modern one, it's hard to imagine giving it a higher score than that.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
