By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Ljink96 said:
DonFerrari said:

Nope, although I don't see why it received so much perfect scores I can understand the love for it and why it would be considered the best game of the year. So nope, good for switch owners just means they have good content exclusive to their platform meaning a reason to buy the hardware.

Well...have you played the game yet? I'm in college and I make it a point to not play games during the semester, yet I sunk over 120 hours into it during the semester. It's a really addictive and well made game developed by over 300 people for 5 years. I think it deserves the scores it got.

Don't have Switch and when tried previous Zelda I didn't get the hype all of them had. So yes I see the scores as inflated. And I read several of the threads here pointing how the reviewers were pointing major flaws but not making discounts on the score to reflect that. Basically giving score based on how much they liked the game and not by their own technical evaluation.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."