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

Forums - Gaming - Issues with IGN's MM3D Score

 

Is IGN full of idiots?

Yes 228 67.66%
 
No 109 32.34%
 
Total:337
Cobretti2 on 17 February 2015
vivster said:
Cobretti2 said:
vivster said:

How are they full of idiots if they gave the original 9.9?

Also how about reading the full review and not just the bullet points at the end?


You do realise those were different reviewers who actually played Nintendo games for over 15 years. IGN is jsut a shell of it's former glory.

However, I do agree that he shoudl read the full review.

Yes I do realize that but I wonder if OP does.

Why should a completely different reviewer adhere to a score that another reviewer set?

well he shouldn't  but he needs to justify it in his words too. Personally I have not read it and don't care to as IGN in general have gone to shit since the mass exeduse of people over the years. 



 

 

Around the Network
SWORDF1SH on 17 February 2015
Samus Aran said:
SWORDF1SH said:
ExplodingBlock said:
veritaz said:
Games don't start off at a 10 point rating, you know that right? A review doesn't start off at 10 and take points off.


Well they give the original Majora's Mask a 9.9, so they took off 1.2 points for the exact same temple

Come on! The original is 15 years old. You have to review the game by todays standards and the standards have changed.

They've actually made a lot of changes to the remake, so your logic doesn't make much sense. Great Bay Temple wasn't bad at all in my opinion. Got stuck once and had to use a guide because I didn't realize you could freeze the octorocks to use as a platform lol.

That's why I prefer Metroid, if you're stuck you can just use your scan visor to look for hints. Navi/Tael or whatever is fucking useless.

Point is,it's a new game in it's own right, why should people expect it to get the same score as the original? Doesn't matter if it's a remake, remastered or even an entirely new game with the same name, it get's rated by todays standards.



Paatar on 17 February 2015

They're idiots. It's like with the Pokemon ORAS remake. 7.8/10 for too much water. IDIOTSSSSSS



[Switch Friend code: 3909-3991-4970]

[Xbox Live: JissuWolfe]

[PSN: Jissu]

Paatar on 17 February 2015
mZuzek said:
Paatar said:
They're idiots. It's like with the Pokemon ORAS remake. 7.8/10 for too much water. IDIOTSSSSSS

Except 8.7 is a pretty bad score for a game as good as Majora's Mask, while 7.8 is pathetically high for the worst Pokémon game in years. Edit: I mean yeah sure, the supposed reason for both scores is ridiculous, but Pokémon deserved a 6 at best.


Hoenn is probably the best in the series. The worst has got to be Kanto or Johto. Lol



[Switch Friend code: 3909-3991-4970]

[Xbox Live: JissuWolfe]

[PSN: Jissu]

Paatar on 17 February 2015
mZuzek said:
Paatar said:

Hoenn is probably the best in the series. The worst has got to be Kanto or Johto. Lol

Ruby and Sapphire were pretty good, Emerald was amazing. But Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire, in my opinion, suck big time.

The best games are IMO Gold/Silver, Black/White and X/Y.


They're remakes of the older games with improved things. How does that make them worse? Black and White 2 were better than B/W. But ORAS is definitely better than Ruby/Sapphire.



[Switch Friend code: 3909-3991-4970]

[Xbox Live: JissuWolfe]

[PSN: Jissu]

Around the Network
Squeezol on 18 February 2015
outlawauron said:
Squeezol said:

It's not about IGN having a different opinion, it's about them giving an unjustified score. 

What about the score is unjustified?

Well, the OP says the score is unjustified because they take off a whole 1.3 points for the Great Bay Temple.



outlawauron on 18 February 2015
Squeezol said:
outlawauron said:

What about the score is unjustified?

Well, the OP says the score is unjustified because they take off a whole 1.3 points for the Great Bay Temple.

But they don't take off points for Great Bay Temple. Game don't start out as 10s and get deducted points. IGN's pro/cons only hit big points. That doesn't mean that this specific temple was the only thing the reviewer disliked about the game.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Squeezol on 18 February 2015
outlawauron said:
Squeezol said:

Well, the OP says the score is unjustified because they take off a whole 1.3 points for the Great Bay Temple.

But they don't take off points for Great Bay Temple. Game don't start out as 10s and get deducted points. IGN's pro/cons only hit big points. That doesn't mean that this specific temple was the only thing the reviewer disliked about the game.

Well, why would they give less point for pretty much the same game?



rolltide101x on 18 February 2015
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"

N64 was aimed at core gamers, 3DS is not aimed at core gamers that makes the review mechanics different. Another thing is the guy who gave it a 9.9 is not who reviewed it this time. A different person should not take an old review into account



rolltide101x on 18 February 2015
Squeezol said:
outlawauron said:

But they don't take off points for Great Bay Temple. Game don't start out as 10s and get deducted points. IGN's pro/cons only hit big points. That doesn't mean that this specific temple was the only thing the reviewer disliked about the game.

Well, why would they give less point for pretty much the same game?

Maybe that fact? Maybe the fact the reviewer now is a different person than the old reviewer? Because the 3DS target audience is a different crowd than the N64 crowd?