Just wanna throw here that a 10 doesn't strictly has to mean "perfect". Gamespot's appraisal of 10, for example, is "essential", which allows them to give a comfortable 10 even if they can spot one or two flaws.
| Wright said: Just wanna throw here that a 10 doesn't strictly has to mean "perfect". Gamespot's appraisal of 10, for example, is "essential", which allows them to give a comfortable 10 even if they can spot one or two flaws. |
This. 10/10 is a score which is usually graded to a game which is considered to be a masterpiece or an essential game. There's not such thing as a perfect game.
irstupid said:
How many arrows does Horizon have? I've watch a few hours of a let's play. They have normal and fire arrows essentially so far. Guessing they will have electric arrows at some point. Also saw with the little ear piece you can see the giant gas canisters on enemies backs or other weak points, you then shoot them. Nothing revolutionary. It's neat. The fire arrows blowing up teh gas tanks is really cool and seems to do massive damage. But Zelda has many arrows. You have fire, ice and light arrows, normal arrows. Then you have whatever that one arrow is on the figurine or used in teh trailer. Is there bomb arrows in this game? But the point of their critique was not about variety of arrows or how to kill, but how unrealistic the firing of arrows was. Meaning you could aim at the center of a target from 10 meters away or 100 meters away and both would hit the center of the target. In Zelda, (and other games, Zelda didn't invent this) you can't aim at the same spot. If you 10 meters away you can aim at center, but if your 100 meters away you would have to aim say a foot above the target. That is realism. When playing two games at the same time or one after the other, things that like may stick out to some and make them dock one score or raise anothers. |
I haven't played Horizon yet as it hasn't yet been released in my country. I saw an arrow that has a rope that makes your enemy unable to move and some more but that was while watching a review so I'll be able to tell better when I play the game but I heard there are many arrows that are in the game and you can craft so many weapons.
Now if you're going to talk about realism then Horizon looks way more realistic than Zelda and has a more realistic scale to the geography of the place you are in and so is the way characters speak and enemy AI for the robot dinosaurs. Why isn't that factored in the review if he wants realism? I don't see many games criticised for being unrealistic and Nintendo is well known and liked for that. I don't know which reviewer you are talking of but they seem to be biased because that is a terrible reason to call one better than the other because then you would need to look at the entire combat like enemy AI and movement as well as the variety of weapons which I said.
WOW! Incredible!
I didn't think these kind of scores would be possible anymore.
AGH!!! Why didn't I pre-order on Amazon???
3 more perfect scores!
| TK-Karma said: Holy bonkers that's high. I hope that this isn't simply a case of "too big to fail", so review outlets are skewing scores higher on the spectrum artificially. Still, good news that it's rocking a Metacritic score this high :) |
I think metacritic user scores over time should shed a little bit of light on if the score is artificial. From what I've seen, if there's a large enough user score sample size, you multiply the average user score by 10 and the end number tends to be within 10 points higher or 10 points lower compared to its metacritic score if it's accurate. For example, OoT's metacritic score is 99 and its user score is 91, so OoT to me seems to be deserving of its high score based on my methodology. My red-flags start to come up once I start seeing 12-15 point differences from the metacritic/user score. It's not foolproof by any means but it seems to work for me most of the time.
GOWTLOZ said:
I haven't played Horizon yet as it hasn't yet been released in my country. I saw an arrow that has a rope that makes your enemy unable to move and some more but that was while watching a review so I'll be able to tell better when I play the game but I heard there are many arrows that are in the game and you can craft so many weapons. Now if you're going to talk about realism then Horizon looks way more realistic than Zelda and has a more realistic scale to the geography of the place you are in and so is the way characters speak and enemy AI for the robot dinosaurs. Why isn't that factored in the review if he wants realism? I don't see many games criticised for being unrealistic and Nintendo is well known and liked for that. I don't know which reviewer you are talking of but they seem to be biased because that is a terrible reason to call one better than the other because then you would need to look at the entire combat like enemy AI and movement as well as the variety of weapons which I said. |
The reviews say that the enemies in BOTW having pretty amazing AI. Watchmojo said that when they threw a bomb at a minor enemy the grunt killed them by kicking the bomb back at them. Others spoke of how enemies used the terrain, and how the NPCs had realistic schedules, reacted realistically to Link, the weather and enemies, and even went to fight enemies on their own without Link's intervention.
Digging through the reviews reveals a lot of surprising reasons for the game's high scores.
GOWTLOZ said:
I haven't played Horizon yet as it hasn't yet been released in my country. I saw an arrow that has a rope that makes your enemy unable to move and some more but that was while watching a review so I'll be able to tell better when I play the game but I heard there are many arrows that are in the game and you can craft so many weapons. Now if you're going to talk about realism then Horizon looks way more realistic than Zelda and has a more realistic scale to the geography of the place you are in and so is the way characters speak and enemy AI for the robot dinosaurs. Why isn't that factored in the review if he wants realism? I don't see many games criticised for being unrealistic and Nintendo is well known and liked for that. I don't know which reviewer you are talking of but they seem to be biased because that is a terrible reason to call one better than the other because then you would need to look at the entire combat like enemy AI and movement as well as the variety of weapons which I said. |
AI for robot dinosaurs. It's nothing special. You can click on them and then it shows you the set path they walk in. Their patrol basically.
The arrows you are talking about are a trap basically. But again this isn't about who has more or not, just pointing out tha tyou dismised Zelda's arrow variety.
Realism in games. Some of the things i've seen or read for Zelda sound incredible for realism and AI. One guy saw a group of bokoblins chatting around a fire. He snuck up to them and tried to grab one of thier clubs that had been leaning up against a log. He got spotted or heard just before he grabbed it and the enemy who's club it was grabbed it quick adn they started attacking. Another situation was a guy was fighting a giant of some sort and in the fight an explosion (bombs?) blew up tree and the giant then picked up the tree and used it as a club. I'm sure you've seen the videos of Link setting fire to the grass in a windy area and it spreading forward and killing the enemies. Or the standard pushing a bolder off a hill into a group of enemies. How abou tfighting a skeleton creature and knocking off their arms. I've seen other skeleton creatures then pick up anothers arm and use it as a weapon.
Zelda has been getting huge praise for its realism being on a level that is unheard of.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
