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

I'm 96% sure this is a joke, maybe not 97%, but definitely 96 or 95% at the lowest.

In all seriousness, though. It's difficult to rate all games on the same scale, given that there is a wide set of values in what makes a great game. Speaking, the amount of pixels to get from one side of the screen to the other has absolutely nothing to do with quality once it is past a certain point. The screen they were originally designed for must be taken into account as well; so, a game like DKC designed for a 1990s TV screen looks beautiful, but looks very pixilated on LCD screens that would be considered gigantic in the 1990. A remastered version of DKC games could make them just as they were before, visually. Design-wise, while DKC was cutting edge at the time, that's no longer the case - and so time has to be onsidered as well. Some games are also designed to be retro, and their graphical quality could be exactly as desired, despite having nothing more than 8-bit colours and pixel sprites.

Anyway, my writing is twisting and jumbling a lot of ideas around. If it's not clear, and you want to know, I'll clarify. But I'm going to stop here for now, I am sure many people can think of different standards for different goals and different genres. There is no one size fits all perfection. What Zelda does, in the time it did it, in my opinion is the best game I've played. But that's based on my own experiences and ideals, and I know many agree. But that means nothing for those who don't have the same ideals as this group I agree with for what makes a great game. I respect a lot of what Jim Sterling says, but his opinion on Breath of the Wild is insane to me, and I am sure mine is insane to him.

As an example that I am sure many here have seen at some point: You could say it didn't do dialogue sequences as in depth as the Witcher, but then there is a ton of stuff Witcher 3 didn't do as well as Zelda; they had different goals, and comparing the two in order to justifying point deductions is pointless - even if both games do involve a guy swinging around weapons in an open world.

I guess, the review industry is pretty much a scam. Especially with how they number everything based on some arbitrary standard that has no objective value.

And yes, I rambled on even further, so I'll stop here.

We should clearly use a scale of 0 to 1 quintillion zillion trillion billion million.

Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also