| thismeintiel said: Except, going by that thread, they are pratically the same. Only the ones in Horizon are moving creatures. Of course, that ignores my 2nd guess. Maybe he just doesn't like the new additions to this Zelda, which is his right to not like. Yes, I do wish it got an 89, not because I think it deserves that, but it would be hilarious to see how apeshit some fans would be for it getting a great score. I mean if they are going this nuts over a 7 lowering it to 97, I'm guessing the internet would blow up if they got an 89. Hell, a 94 may have the same reaction. And I don't care what Metacritic lists a 7 as. It matters what the reviewer lists it as, which to many is just plain good. Of course, that doesn't really matter, since the Metacritic is still 97. |
Well the bigger argument is that in BoTW unlocking a tower does not reveal secrets, so the game does not become a checklist simulator, which is the problem people had with Ubisoft towers in the first place. I don't know how Horizon's towers work, so I can't and didn't comment on them, but from what others in the thread said they do reveal world secrets. That is a difference to be had. I don't understand what you are saying here "doesn't like the new additions to this Zelda" versus Skyrim or previous Zeldas? Skyward Sword had a stamina meter.
I predicted the game would get a 95%. I am fine with anything above that. My distaste for his review has very little to do with the Metacritic score drop. Many people in the prediction thread predicted lower than a 97%, and then they played the game.
It does matter when the review is recorded on Metacritic. If a reviewer has an atypical reviewing rubric, then it makes the Metacritic results skewed and therefore it should either be contextualized or not counted.
