Are Nintendo games held to an unrealistic standard?

[HoangNhatAnh]

BraLoD said:

adslife said:

The thing is, it's clear where your bias lands. But your argument falls flat.

You have been shown that Nintendo do in fact create and adapt new technology right up to the Switch and you seem to ignore this.

You seem very attached to a meta score of 97. When in reality it is only a score and not the be all and end all and most people couldn't care less about meta scores. I love videogames and own a ps4, a gaming pc and a Switch so I can objectively say that Nintendo is not given free passes just because its Nintendo. Their games score highly because they are justified at the time.

Naughty Dog games score very highly too, so does that really mean that they are also given free passes like Nintendo? Think about it for a moment. Its clear and obvious that no Naughty Dogs games score highly because they were deemed worthy of it. The same for those nintendo games like BoTW and Mario Odyssey.

Also you say about the Last of us set new gold standards in gaming. I love Uncharted and Naughty Dog but TLoU was actually one game of theirs I didn't enjoy. But I appreciate many people do and do not argue it doesn't deserve its praise and review scores. I personally can think of many games that told great stories, both on PlayStation and Nintendo throughout the years.

You mention dreams and LBP as new innovations. Nintendo so this too, whether you or I like them or not, Nintendo brought us Labo last year with new ways to play, Mario Maker to create 2d  Mario platform game much easier than other game makers I've tried before including LBP. There are innovative games all around on all game platforms.

I'm sorry but your argument just does not hold up.

I suppose you are talking to me?

You don't need to figure where my bias land, I never tried pretending I don't have one or to hide it.

I'm primarly a PlayStation fan, so you know.

Which doesn't mean I don't like a lot of other stuff or anything that comes from Sony. I have a clear prefference, but that's it. I'll not refrain from having my opinions on anything else because of it.

About you ND points, I already answered that, ND will get under 90+ if they do a good but not amazing game that have flaws pointed out, but since Uncharted 2 from their 4 mainline games released 3 won the GOTY, and they won against games that could hit such scores.

I've never said ND games score poorly or should score higher here, but that no matter how great they are they'll get criticism coming to them.

97 is quite a symbolic score for Sony, even if not much different from 96 or 50, they are all scores, but 97 is a score Sony simply can't seem to reach for some reason, while like Nintendo they produce a lot of the most important, well know, and well produced games in the last 25 years.

Also it's fine if you didn't like TLoU, as it's fine if someone didn't like BotW, nothing can be said about those games not being very important tho, they are. I can probably give a 10 to BotW as I did for TLoU once I properly play it, it seems great.

The thing is, BotW could be a lot more polished, and if it was not a Nintendo game a lot of those 10 would turn into 9.5 or 9 because of that.

Does that make it any less good or deserving or a very high score? Absolutely not. That's not what I'm talking about.

Yeah, TLoU could be an open world like GTA but nope, if it wasn't Sony game then a lot of those perfect scores would be lowered

Hynad said:

HoangNhatAnh said:

Lol trying to praise Sony while playing down Nintendo is surely very objective. Don't ignore my comment, give a reply 

Says the guy who dismissed every examples given from Sony’s side... 

Just trying to repeat what he did to Nintendo and it isn't like any point i said was wrong either