Although I agree with what you said in value and replay value for this game: won't those two often contradict each other?
It's weird to see a game that has a 100 plus hours of content get a yellow for replayability, I guess technically once you've spent that much time on the game there is no reason to go back, but it's still is kinda weird lol
That's exactly why value is broken down into two categories. It allows me to make it clear how a game really is.
Even if it looks odd, it's fine if people feel that it's right. So far that seems to be the case.
|Pyro as Bill said:
If the bias is positive and you gave it a 9, isn't that the same as a negatively biased 7?
*googles how to DDoS
I think the graphics score should be higher. If the world was smaller, less open, on the PS4 and didn't allow you to paraglide any direction from the top of a 500ft+ mountain then the pop in could have been avoided/minimised. As things stand I can't think of a bigger, more open world that doesn't have these problems or wouldn't if done with the same freedom. They also managed to do it without (m)any bugs/glitches. It's a bigger technical achievement than Crysis was on the PC.
I agree with replayability compared to the 2D but compared to the other 3Ds it's the only one that is replayable.
What score would you have given to OoT and SS at release? Do you have an example of a 10?
The graphics score would only need to be higher if I had given other open world games a higher mark. Besides, the framerate dips were easily the bigger factor in going with green.
With the review guideline I have here (no game can get a 10 at release), OoT would have been a 9 and SS an 8. It's also worth noting that very few games got a 9 in the reviews I've written under A Biased Review, so regular readers learned to accept that an 8 is already a very good score instead of "barely above average". A 10 is a game like A Link to the Past. I don't think I would give Ocarina of Time a 10, because it hasn't aged as well; a 9 seems more appropriate.