Forums - Gaming Discussion - Issues with IGN's MM3D Score

Is IGN full of idiots?

Yes 228 67.66%
 
No 109 32.34%
 
Total:337
ExplodingBlock said:
sundin13 said:
Remakes tend to use a 9 point scale...


Persona 4 Golden got a 9.3

They also gave the Last of Us Remastered a 10


Persona 4 Golden has a ton of extra content that wasn't in the original and even new characters in the story. The Last of Us remastered is a game of the year edition that just came out on PS4 a year after the original release, not the same thing at all. Comparing that to a game that came out a decade and a half ago doesn't work. 



Around the Network

I dont think the pros or cons have anything to do with the final score. The reviewer gave the game an 8.7 which is great.

This just reminds me of most jobs people whining about staff even tho its the companys fault for implementing these policies ie. the pros and cons



ExplodingBlock said:

So if you remember in the Majora's Mask 3D review, the only con they gave it was "Great Bay Temple", and they gave the game a 8.7

I just finished Great Bay Temple in MM3D right now (Pretty much the same as the n64 version) and how in the holy mother of ASS is that one temple worth

of taking of 1.3 points off of the score?

The temple isn't even that bad, it wasn't even too hard, just had a lot of guessing, water temple was worse in my opinion. 

Also they gave the original Majora's Mask a 9.9, so they took off points for pretty much the exact same game 

I could understand them giving it a 9.5 or a 9 because of some changes they didn't like, but really? Giving it an 8.7 is insane 

And of course, this is right after they give ORAS a 7.8 because of "Too Much Water" and "Too Many HMs"


They didn't take 1.3 for that "minus".Not having minus doesn't make the game 10 out of 10.

There is games/movies/series ep. that don't have "minus" and still are not good enough to be 10/10.

"minus" are just the highlights of what,in the reviewer's opinion, didn't work about the game.

Not having highlight doens't mean the game is a masterpiece,just well polished and well design.



PixelPerfect said:

insert 7.8/10 too much water joke here

In all seriousness, they can be hypocrites sometimes, but what really boggles my mind is how much different their score for the original was compared to this one, since I've heard that they improved some things in the Great Bay Temple as well. People have had a problem with their scores for awhile and they are a part of why I'm not a huge fan of scores, since most people pay more attention to that than the points made in the review.  IGN has more problems than just review scores though.

 


It's because it's a different reviewer and the system has changed since 2000.



Delicious, delicious games.

ExplodingBlock said:
TheGoldenBoy said:
So you're telling me that someone is an idiot because they have a different opinion than you?


No because the give dumbass reasons for the cons 

Thats like giving a Mario game an 8.2 and the give only one con being "World 2-3"

Not even close to the same thing, MM only has 4 dungeons having one that's bad is pretty significant, Mario has like a hundred levels, having one that's bad is a tiny portion of the game.  



Around the Network

I think it's a very fair point. I absolutely HATED the Water Temple. It was so boring and bland. Not worthy of subtracting 1.2 points off because the rest of the game is amazing but still worth docking off the score because it just wasn't very enjoyable to play through.

You have to bear in mind that a lot of the time, these games get caught up in the hype train at the time of their initial release. I think it's good that they go back and reevaluate their original scores. I am willing to bet that if Skyward Sword were to ever get a HD remake that it would get an 8.5 or below.



PixelPerfect said:

insert 7.8/10 too much water joke here

In all seriousness, they can be hypocrites sometimes, but what really boggles my mind is how much different their score for the original was compared to this one, since I've heard that they improved some things in the Great Bay Temple as well. People have had a problem with their scores for awhile and they are a part of why I'm not a huge fan of scores, since most people pay more attention to that than the points made in the review.  IGN has more problems than just review scores though.

 


Games age, and sometimes they don't age well. What might have been a good game/ good game mecanics or whatever 10 years ago can be outdated now. The game has to compete with modern games and be judged according to modern standards now so a difference in reviewscores  to 10 years ago makes sense imo.

That said i haven't played the original Majoras Mask nor the 3ds version nor have i read the review, so what do i know.



Games don't start at 10 and lose points.

Especially 15 year old outdated games that got most of its points because of nostalgia.

8.7 is a more than deserving score for a game that could be played 15years ago.



From a site that gave Evolve a 9 & without talking 1 single time about the DLC, what are you expecting?
If Nintendo had Zelda: Majora's Mask ads all over IGN for a month, you can be pretty sure that the score would have been different... this kind of "journalism" has been covered for a long time by a few serious journalists/persons.
You read IGN at your own peril, it's like people watching FOX-News for information!!!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n29CicBxZuw

01001011 01101001 01110011 01110011 00100000 01101101 01111001 00100000 01110011 01101000 01101001 01101110 01111001 00100000 01101101 01100101 01110100 01100001 01101100 00100000 01100001 01110011 01110011 00100001

I thought the same with its Apotheon review.

IGN 6.9 http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/02/05/apotheon-review

Gameinformer 9 http://www.gameinformer.com/games/apotheon/b/pc/archive/2015/02/03/apotheon-review-game-informer.aspx

Not sure it deserves a 9, but i think it is better then 6.9. But really the gameinformer review sounded like they played the entire game and gave good reasons.