| Shadow1980 said: Man. Those review scores are all over the place. The sketchy controls seem to be the biggest issue. I'm probably going to wait until I can find this game for cheap, but it seems like it might not be quite up to SF64 levels of quality. Honestly, this is why gimmicky controllers are a bad idea, because Nintendo has to find ways to justify the existence of those controllers. While some uses of the Gamepad's functionality were pretty cool, some were unnecessary and shoehorned in just because. SF0 really needed an option for standard thumbstick-and-button-only controls. Oh, and I saw this earlier on IGN's discussion thread on their SF0 review page:
Pretty accurate if you ask me. |
Actually, I think it's exactly the contrary. Previously every game which didn't score more than a 80 was shit. Now, reviewers are harsher, but people STILL think that a +70 game now is the same than a +70 game before. It isn't. It's harder to see an 80 game these days. Games like Tropical Freeze, which is widely praised by Nintendo fans (not everyone, but a lot of them) has an 83. I think it's just harder to get good scores now. And I changed my mind accordingly.
Also, I can't deny the fact that some of my favourite games this gen are 70+. Hyrule Warriors, Yoshi's Woolly World, Fatal Frame V (actually, a 67), The Wonderful 101... I couldn't care less about the score, all of them were awesome imo. If this gen told me something about scores, is that I don't care about them. I like them because I can have arguments with people about them :P. But that's it. I read reviews now to know its cons and pros, and see if it's worth it for me. For example, this game has as a con in a lot of reviews its length. I think that the length is fine, so a lot of reviews don't express what I feel.
