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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - IGN gives Ocarina of Time a 9.5 out of 10. Yet Star Fox gets an extra 0.3 added to its score?

Tagged games:

blkfish92 on 17 June 2011

Guys lets remember now that it's more or less the same game here, honestly I was expecting a 9. The fact that it's the same game is fine, but not a 10 as it didn't revolutionize anything as of now, but it did back in '98 that's why it got a 10 back then.

Besides shouldn't be to mad guys as a 9.5 is quite the feat.



           

Around the Network
oniyide on 17 June 2011

"waaaaah!!! They gave a game i like a 9.5 instead of a ten, they are bias and hate Ninty!" Give me a break, it's a 13 year old game that has been rerealeased TWICE already. 9.5 is a great score. If your a kid who never played the game before, good for you, give it a ten, but anyone who considers themselves a gamer must have played this game at least once.



Rainbow Yoshi on 17 June 2011

The score is probably lower because the impact is not as high as the original.



Staude on 17 June 2011
irstupid said:
Torillian said:
spurgeonryan said:

But the  main reason they don't give it a 10 is because some of the graphics could have been re-done better! They did not do any tweeks to the music (although I believe it comes with the soundtrack?). IGN...it was a 10 back in 1998, now it is better, but you reduced the score? What else am I missing people, other than it is basically the same game on a new system. Remember some people have not seen it. You wouldn't give Star Wars a A- just because it was re-release with new scenes would you? Let's have a 17 year old who did not play the original rate this game and see what happens.

 

http://ds.ign.com/articles/117/1177020p1.html


I'm a big proponent of the idea that a 10 in 1998 wouldn't necessarily be a 10 in 2011.  Gaming has changed and evolved since then and standards have moved forward.  Similar to how a late port usually gets a lower metacritic score even if it's only a few months old it seems that the remake didn't improve enough to make up the difference that 13 years has made to industry standards.  I'd have to play it myself to see if I agree.

i'm in the exact opposite boat.  take away todays pretty graphics and see how they do

there have been soo many great games i have played this gen that have less than par graphics and they got horrible reviews and there have been even more shitty games that i have played that had amazing graphics and good scores.

It seems a game gets docked a bunch for its graphics in reviews, yet doesn't get docked for bugs or gliches.  They just go "hope an update fixes this later"  its like wtf

you realize that more powerful hardware allows for improvement in all aspects of the game, and not just the visuals right ?

 

A more direct reply to your statement.. Concider that a game from 1996 released today the exact same. The controls would be slammed, the AI would be slammed... It would be called a relic, under developed as the game today are amongst and competing with games in the same genre that have been developed much further... Even if the original game was the starting point of their development. If it had'nt been made before, didn't have a popular char.. It would get slammed in reviews.



Check out my game about moles ^

Tizona on 18 June 2011

I don't mind the score not being a 10. More insulting to me was Gameinformer (uhg) gave it a 9.25 and gave L.A. Noire a 8.75....and then said L.A. Noire was Game of the Month.....cause that makes all sorts of sense. But it's Gameinformer, so I wasn't really expecting anything different anyway. I'll be picking my copy up day one and enjoying the poop out of it regardless of any review score.



LISTEN TO THE FIRST WORLD PODCAST REAL GAMERS, REAL AWESOME

Around the Network
TheGameFather on 18 June 2011
Fab_GS said:
TheGameFather said:

I was honestly expecting something in the 8s, I even thought they might go full tard and 7.9 it...

This score is reasonable.


IGN cannot score 7.9 anymore, though. There has to be 0.5 between each score (e.g. 8.0, 8.5, 9, 9.5, 10). Just like GameSpot.



  Are you suggesting the crew at IGN aren't pretentious enough to do it anyway?

 

 

But yeah, shows how long its been since I've read an IGN review the .1s we're in there at the time.



Boutros on 18 June 2011
Rainbow Yoshi said:
It looks likely to be game of the year, however there are still potential games that could pip it to the post.

Something would be dreadfully wrong with the industry if a re-release/remake wins GOTY.



irstupid on 18 June 2011
Staude said:
irstupid said:
Torillian said:
spurgeonryan said:

But the  main reason they don't give it a 10 is because some of the graphics could have been re-done better! They did not do any tweeks to the music (although I believe it comes with the soundtrack?). IGN...it was a 10 back in 1998, now it is better, but you reduced the score? What else am I missing people, other than it is basically the same game on a new system. Remember some people have not seen it. You wouldn't give Star Wars a A- just because it was re-release with new scenes would you? Let's have a 17 year old who did not play the original rate this game and see what happens.

 

http://ds.ign.com/articles/117/1177020p1.html


I'm a big proponent of the idea that a 10 in 1998 wouldn't necessarily be a 10 in 2011.  Gaming has changed and evolved since then and standards have moved forward.  Similar to how a late port usually gets a lower metacritic score even if it's only a few months old it seems that the remake didn't improve enough to make up the difference that 13 years has made to industry standards.  I'd have to play it myself to see if I agree.

i'm in the exact opposite boat.  take away todays pretty graphics and see how they do

there have been soo many great games i have played this gen that have less than par graphics and they got horrible reviews and there have been even more shitty games that i have played that had amazing graphics and good scores.

It seems a game gets docked a bunch for its graphics in reviews, yet doesn't get docked for bugs or gliches.  They just go "hope an update fixes this later"  its like wtf

you realize that more powerful hardware allows for improvement in all aspects of the game, and not just the visuals right ?

 

A more direct reply to your statement.. Concider that a game from 1996 released today the exact same. The controls would be slammed, the AI would be slammed... It would be called a relic, under developed as the game today are amongst and competing with games in the same genre that have been developed much further... Even if the original game was the starting point of their development. If it had'nt been made before, didn't have a popular char.. It would get slammed in reviews.

read a recent interview on ocarina of time and found something interesting stated.  basically the z targeting works that when you have them targeting then that enemy ONLY attacks you and theother wait there turn.

to me that sounds like the recent assassins creed games and many others where the enemies all WAIT their turn to fight or fight you one on one.  doesn't sound like the ai in recent games is much better.

i know witcher 2 they all attack at once and due to this i have seen more than enough of people complainig about how its too hard and they should be liek assassins creed.  very sad



Rainbow Yoshi on 19 June 2011
Boutros said:
Rainbow Yoshi said:
It looks likely to be game of the year, however there are still potential games that could pip it to the post.

Something would be dreadfully wrong with the industry if a re-release/remake wins GOTY.

I hope it doesn't occur as well, it would be good to see a brand new IP take the title though. I shall purchase the game though.



enrageorange on 19 June 2011

I thought sony fanboys were ridiculous when they got mad that their beloved games scored below a 9.
9.5 is way more than the game deserves if it were rated by the same standards most games today are.