By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 on 13 March 2017
Edit Thread
potato_hamster said:

Howlongtobeat isn't accurate because the way YOU played it and YOUR expereince differs from others.  Of course. That's all it takes. I guess Metal Gear Solid V takes 120 hours to beat because that's how long I sunk into the game before finishing the final mission, right? Give me a fucking break.  It's not like I was taking the time of the speedrunner that beat the game in less than an hour. These are people self reporting their completion times, and I have no reason to expect that to be inaccurate. Besides, if you expect reviewers to get anywhere near even 80% completion of a game before posting a review, then I can guarantee there might be a handful of Breath of the Wild reviews that might meet your criteria, if any at all.

This entire post (both your opinion, and the redditor opinion you quoted can be summed up as "I have a different opinion than Jim, therefore Jim is factually inaccurate". The closest thing to a factual inaccuracy that anyone can appear to bring up is where Jim says:

"Yes, every shrine is technically optional in the same way not rocking up to Ganon’s front door and assaulting his forces with a tree branch is – you can do whatever you like, but if you want to have a solid chance of actually succeeding, there is a proper, preconstructed way of doing things, and the proper way of handling shrines is to complete them on sight lest lose track of them – finish as many of them as possible, as close to all 120 of the bloody things as you can."

The bolded can easily be interpreted as "easily forgotten", yet because they appear on your map after discovering them, are in fact "trackable" in a sense.

But apparently this is enough for some people to claim that Jim's review is "full of factual inaccuracies". Because you can interpret one sentence in a way that might be incorrect This is laughable.

My point is that people who are taking longer to beat the game haven't entered their values yet. It released March 3rd, and only 80 people polled, when HowLongToBeat tends to have thousands polled. That is why its innacurate, not because it took me longer to beat (even though I am one of the first dozen to beat the game on Vghchartz.)

Shrines show up as a different color on the map when they are not completed, they are very easily trackable. I don't know what to say to you. You obviously haven't played the game so you can't see where he gets the facts wrong, and you are so intent on defending his really badly substantiated review.  None of the things I have criticized him for nor the redditor are "subjective" they are critiques on his understanding of how the system works. He thinks one-shot kills are common. They aren't. He thinks the blood moon happens often and it is comparable to Castlevania II's message box. It doesn't and isn't. He compares the towers to ubisoft towers without realizing the crucial difference of why people dislike ubisoft towers does not follow into this game. He ignores certain items which are meant to remove many of the obstacles he complains about, as intentional gameplay devices. So on and so forth. These are positive claims about what the game is, not normative claims about how it feels. 

But please go on, defend a piss-poor review of a game you haven't played.