•  
  • MattRorie
  • Level: 43 (55%) 
  • Rank: Sword of Sodan
  • Member since: Sep 23, 2004
  • Last online: 11/30/09 10:50 am PT
  • My Emblems:
    • Rank: Total Access Subscriber
    • Popular
    • Virtually There: E3 2008 GameSpot Show Sushi
    • Foreign Dignitary
    • Virtually There: E3 2007 Microsoft Conference.
    • Burning Crusader
    • Boss Murder Witness
    • World Cup Fanatic
    • Rank: Total Access Subscriber
    • Popular
    • Good Taste
    • PC Aficionado
    • Vote Rocker
    • Tagger Flirt
    • Virtually There: E3 2006 Sony Conference
    • Virtually There: E3 2006 Nintendo Conference
    • Virtually There: E3 2006 Microsoft Conference
    • Public Access
    • World Cup Fanatic
    • Boss Murder Witness
    • Burning Crusader
    • Virtually There: E3 2007 Microsoft Conference.
    • Foreign Dignitary
    • Virtually There: E3 2008 GameSpot Show Sushi
     
     
    Close

My Friends

My Recent Ratings

Title Score
Half-Life 2 9.9
FreeSpace 2 9.7
San Francisco Rush 2049 10
18Nov 06

It's Zelda, people.

Alright, this has gotten a bit out of hand so I am going to take down what was previously here for the moment. I haven't been asked to do so by anyone, but in retrospect the timing was obviously bad for expressing my opinions on the matter; I should've waited until everyone got their hands on the game and had a chance to play through it. And rest assured that what was here previously were my opinions and mine alone; I wasn't writing with the thought that I was representing GameSpot as a whole, even if some of you think I was, and I certainly wasn't thinking that someone had to come to Jeff's defense. He's a big boy. The review for Twilight Princess speaks for itself, and does so well, in my opinion.

Obviously Zelda is something that everyone is passionate about, myself included, so I'll revisit the issue after everyone gets a chance to play the game for themselves.
  • Posted Nov 18, 2006 6:34 am PT
  • Category: Editorial
  • 320 Comments

320 Comments

  • Dying_Honor

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 6:51 am PT

    I agree completely; people need to think more before they go off.
    P.S. First Comment!

  • mariomaniac92

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 6:55 am PT

    It's not music to my ears to hear that this game contains the same basis as most of the series. If it's anything remotely similar to Ocarina of TIme, as far as the levels and location, then I'll immediately fall in love with it. After reading the review, it stated that you'll venture to the Forest Temple, Death Mountain, and even the Water Temple again. It's great that Nintendo brought back some nostalgic dungeons, but why all of them? You mind as well be playing a remake of the Ocarina of Time, eh?

  • The_Mad_Nutter

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 7:00 am PT

    I'm glad gamespot are critical about the games they recieve. Nothing is more annoying than reading a extremely positive review only to find out the game is terrible after you bought it.

    Maybe zelda is the next best thing since slized bread, but I do think Nintendo relies a bit too much on the same characters (mario, link, shamus curby ect) and game styles. Something might start out as good fun, but the "don't fix it if it isn't broken" mentallity just gets old quick after a number of identical games.

  • Chikinware

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 7:05 am PT

    I'm glad GameSpot was critical despite fanboyism. Miyamoto is an overrated designer and Zelda is often an overrated game. I'll still buy it but at least this time my preconceive notions will be reasonable.

  • hendrix29

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 7:14 am PT

    I'm not sure whether to agree or not agree since I have not played the game. But one thing that gamespot manages to do in it's reviews that other websites is not follow the hype. I think this is very important and it is why I almost always trust GS reviews.

  • gagan21

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 7:21 am PT

    gs reviews are very proffesional , even i expected zelda to get a 9 plus, but i think it got great ratings here, cant wait to get my Wii and Zelda TP

  • Reetesh

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 7:47 am PT

    Well, its like all zelda games have the same thing.. its only that the Sheep gathering, Fish Fishing and Boomerang throwing and other additional gameplay elements that Differentiate one from the other.

    Its not only the GAMEPLAY of a game is important though(and I think gameplay is the main thing,u, as a Guide writer have much interest in) The Music, the atmosphere, the FEEL and how U can slack off Ur Dungeon trip and do other things which interest u and see things dynamically react to what u do is the thing that makes most of the zelda lovers love zelda.

    I mean, GTA is the same thing right? same Killing thing over and over again.. but Instead, in every game there are NEW things U can, like swimming, flying planes, using BIKES, Jumping off cliffs using parachutes.. these are the main things that make the game feel even better than the previous one, although the game, basically is the same,(work for 'others', later kill the 'others', and then become the 'others')

    So, we can also expect that the NEXT gta will also be said as the "Same old thing" and be criticized a lot(or maybe till its 6th or so iteration)

  • GMAN32X

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 8:10 am PT

    Reetesh makes a good point. I, however, will reserve judgment until I have played through a significant portion of the game.

  • JohnB22

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 8:18 am PT

    Watching Alex play Zelda during the marathon inspired me immediately afterword to finally play my copy of Ocarina's Master Quest on the Gamecube. I played through it in a few days and it's sated me. I actually put aside Gears of War and Final Fantasy 12 to play nearly a decade old Zelda game, enjoying it just as much as those games. If not more, frankly. Oblivion, too, resting quietly by the console, which Ocarina reminded me of. You can shoot arrows from your horse, it's amazing. I mean I don't need to play Twilight Princess just yet, and certainly not on the Wii. Playing through this game again that I haven't played in many years reminded me of just how much influence it has had on the adventure games made since. I cannot think of any game I've played besides that even comes close. Even Oblivion. Ocarina's epic atmosphere is that impressive to me..

  • Demodocus

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 8:18 am PT

    Thank you Matt, I was saying this even before the review came out.

  • Demodocus

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 8:21 am PT

    Reetesh the GTA PSP haven’t been getting 9.6 and have been criticized for lack of innovation. Also despite the fact the last two real GTA’s got 9.6s they didn’t win GOTY or anything super major.

  • Orusaka

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 8:32 am PT

    Seems insightful. I, for one, have no intention of passing judgement on a game I've not played.

    That said, I don't get the getting riled up over reviews thing. My favourite game was rated 8.5. Should I feel horribly offended? Apparently so, it would seem, judging from the reaction over the Zelda review. A game people haven't even played. Thing is, I'm not offended. I don't care that some person didn't find my favourite game to be the best game they've played. That's the thing I'm having problems understanding about the reaction.

    But, oh well, fanboys will be fanboys, I suppose.

  • TheNay-Sayer

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 8:36 am PT

    Ok fair enough this is how you feel but I just don't understnad the disconnect between Gamespot's opinion and EVERY OTHER GAMES SITE. Sure there's alot of those sites who's opinion I TOTALLY do not value even in the slightest, they're basically shills, but there are also alot of sites who really aren't any different to Gamespot's staff. They have no vested interest in reporting this Zelda is good so I just wonder, for example, why you're condemning the controls in much the same way as Jeff while other web-sites are proclaiming the controls as one of the game's strengths.

    I have no interest in either "side" being "wrong" I just don't understand why there's such a disconnect.

    I don't accept the idea that everyone accept a Gamespot staff member is speaking BS either.

  • Akira2506

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 8:58 am PT

    Here here.

    As a side note "Every other games site" posts good reviews because they dont wanna 'scare off' their Nintendo fanboys, thus their userbase, thus their income.

    High score for Zelda = No pissed off fanboys = More users = More Cash

    If you want to read reviews put up to play you like a puppet, go to one of those sites.

    Personally; Gratz to Gamespot for saying it how it is.

  • DouglasBuffone

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 9:01 am PT

    I really don't think that is fair to say. Long running franchises are almost always lather rinse repeat, but Zelda has changes in both gameplay mechanics and now control scheme to make it one of, if not the, best franchises in the industry. Also, the reasons you just gave Matt, were not the reasons which Jeff stated as being the flaws in the game (except for sound). I understand you have to stand up for him, and I totally respect Jeff's and your opinion, but the reasoning not to give the game a 10 in value is just absurd and maybe, maybe you can make an argument against the gameplay.

  • shasam712

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 9:07 am PT

    I guess what I thought was wierd about the review was that it didn't beat Wind Waker, when everyone pretty much expected it to. I like the Zelda formula, so I guess my opinion is a little jaded. When I play it I will make my mind up, but I guess I never thought that a real Zelda game would get less than a nine.

    Then again... 8.8 = Great! So it's a great score.

  • TheNay-Sayer

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 9:11 am PT

    Akira: That's a weak argument. I'm not interested in that kind of "we have more integrity" BS. I'll agree with you (and I said it in the POST!) that alot of other sites are just shilling, I understand that alot of review sites will simply try and please their fans but NOT every site. To believe every site is corrupt except Gamespot is utterly foolish.

    What I see here is Zelda being held to a different standard then other games and I have no vested interest in saying that, I'm not specifically a Nintendo or Zelda fan. But when I see games like Gears of War that present a generic setting and generic action gameplay style I wonder why Zelda is so different that it deserves a lower score where Gears of War is supposedly a "classic".

    This kind of instant dismissal of anyone who DARES question the GS score is insulting. I wont be lobbed in with the mindless fanboys and I've already spent alot of time defending GS and this score. I just want clarification without being attacked or condescended to.

  • Orusaka

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 9:14 am PT

    Well, you have to remember that those two games were not reviewed at the same point in time, so it does not neccessarily mean that Twilight is worse than Wind Waker.

  • artur79

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 9:23 am PT

    It's tragic that Zelda-fans flame Jeff so hard that Matt has to go out and defend him and his review... I don't know if it's always been this way, but recently with all the new consoles coming out and some huge titles seeing daylight things are heating up on the forums. People are calling each other names, saying really outlandish things... I can understand people fighting over politics, love interests or something like that, but video-games?...

  • TheNay-Sayer

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 9:43 am PT

    Eh... I don't think he's doing much defending of Jeff really. Matt is much more negative about TP in this editorial then Jeff is in the review. Ofcourse he's absolutely welcome to his opinion and I understand where he's coming from, I just don't agree with him to the degree... he agrees with himself... hehe.

    Personally I feel like when you take such a hard-lined stance against something like this then you're only going to shoot yourself in the foot when you go against that stance. For example I know Matt is a big fan of Star Wars and... that's a 30 yr. old series that survives ONLY by regurgitating the same old crap over and over... so... different standards.

  • Hungry_bunny

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 9:44 am PT

    8.8/10 is a GOOD rating, it doesn't mean Zelda sucks.
    I trust Jeff, and I will not judge the review until I've Actually played the game.

  • NeoJedi

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 9:54 am PT

    Matt, I could just kiss you right now, but, you know, I don't actually swing that way...

    Excellent editorial. Finally someone who has a decent head on his shoulders and a good view on things. Zelda and Mario's formulas have been overused by Nintendo, the concept is now at it's lamest. Time to bring in new material.

  • FernandoDANTE

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 9:59 am PT

    FINALLY, someone looking at Nintendo with a truly non-fanboyistic eye!!! Thank you, Gamespot, you're the only ones making sense!!!

  • hijki123

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 10:07 am PT

    Thank you gamespot for being right. Thank you jeff. I will still buy it(8.8 is very good score). Please be always critical of this game other wise there will be no invention.
    Thanks

  • KingBroly

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 10:12 am PT

    So basically, by the Gamespot logic, the GC version will score higher than this one, if you even bother to review it. If it doesn't, your logic is flawed, and so is the review system. You know the next Zelda will have the same controls, and you'll more likely than not give them a 10, flawing your logic yet again. When you say it's off to a bad start, you're basically saying this is the worst Zelda ever, am I right?
    Fine, you have some interesting points. But when everyone else is praising this game, and giving it 9.5's and up, who's really wrong? We live in a democracy, and if it were Survivor, you would be voted off the island.

  • Dinghy_Dog

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 10:28 am PT

    I think what's upsetting more than anything is how Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3 for PS2 can get a 10, and everyone that's played that KNOWS that game isn't perfect. That's the first complaint I heard. I don't disagree that Zelda isn't an 8.8, but given some of the other reviews, like THPS3, you can't tell me that overall, you'll have more fun with Tony Hawk (which one of the unlockable characters was a surfer that goes underneath the level in a 'shark' mode move) than the new Zelda. I hope you see my point.

    But granted, I don't hate Jeff. I love his 360 stuff. But I think he should stay away from the Wii reviews for a while, before some nutjob Nintendo-only gamer goes and hacks him into bits. These people are going crazy.

  • Reetesh

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 10:32 am PT

    And I think they should change the Screenshot of Jeff in Video Review Link, Coz that pose might make others think that Jeff was only reviewing it to say bad things or something (thats the First thing anyone sees after the review score)

  • Zaxex

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 10:37 am PT

    Couldn't agree more the Zelda fanboys are blinded from reason and no doubt would argue against every detailed flaw. The Red steel review was a lot lower then ie xpected i've never played the game but i've pre-ordered it, even if it is poor i expect i'll get a lot of enjoyment out of it as a lot of bad games can be fun.

  • mentalchaos28

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 10:50 am PT

    I second Neo's comment.

  • Brym

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 10:56 am PT

    Thank GOD reviewers are starting to realize that Zelda hasn't done anything new in 10 years. Zelda: LTTP, Link's Awakening, and OoT are my favorite games for their respective systems, but Wind Waker was BORING. Why? I've played it before! IMHO it's one of the most overrated games of all time... and I even liked the graphical style. Mabye I got sick of it earlier than some because I also played all of the gameboy Zeldas, which are also exactly the same (oracle of ages, oracle of seasons, and minnish cap). By the time you're playing the 9th iteration of the same great game, it stops being so great.

    I could never figure out why we downgrade other otherwise great games for being no different then their predecessors, ie Tony Hawk, but we would never touch Zelda.

  • Gamingcucumber

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 11:10 am PT

    Give me a break Matt. This is just another patethic attempt to back up Jeff's extreamly bad way to review games. If it is true what you say, I suppose you dislike Metal Gear Solid 3, Donkey Kong Country, Devil May Cry, Advance Wars, Civilization, Tekken, The Tom Clancy games, Soccom among others, because they just like Zelda have pretty much everything in common with the other games in the series. They all have the same ground with some new items etc, but does that keep them from being good? No...

    You see, Jeff complains on how the Zelda:TP doesn't bring enough new stuff to the table, but guess what. The same guy who said that also gave Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3 an effing 10/10. Yeah, Because THPS3 Reinvented the franchise SOOOO much didn't it!?

    Besides the only the he does in his review is complaining on how bad the sound and graphic is, and that he would like some voice overs. Wow now that's a valid excuse for almost not even mentioning the story etc. So I guess sound and graphics is more important than lenght - story etc.

    Take my advise and read Matt's review on IGN which is FAR more accurate. For crying out loud, Jeff loved TekkenR for the PSP even though the only difference there was the fact that you had like 2 new chars, aside from that the same game only worse looking.

  • ahn_slaught

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 11:19 am PT

    I read the review, and while I don't care one way or another how the game scores, I do think the review itself was a bit unfair to the game. First, it criticizes the graphics for occasional technical problems, especially in light of next gen systems. This, I believe, goes against the GS review criteria, which says plainly that the games are compared to games on the same system. Obviously, consumers don't pick games out of a vacuum and would appreciate some comparisons, but it's clear to everyone that it's not going to stand up to the 360 or PS3's graphical high marks. Second, while I agree that the comments on Zelda being more of the same are probably right, it's quite inconsistent how that same criticism - that one is tired of seeing recycled ideas - is applied to other games. For example, Madden manages to get great scores, and it changes absolutely nothing from year to year. It still, however, receives basically the same score. Bully, as an even more recent example, manages to get high marks despite it being yet another GTA clone (referring to gameplay mechanics, of course). In that respect, I disagree with singling out Zelda for recycling old ideas.

  • Dinghy_Dog

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 11:20 am PT

    Gamingcucumber, I agree. I'd really like to see a response to this. I have the same complaint.

  • death_burnout

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 11:34 am PT

    Thanks rorie, i am fed up with all the fanboys crying over that review, and im glad an editor decided to say something,

  • AKGermany

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 11:53 am PT

    I don't mind the score in the Zelda review at all, but Jeff's criticism in the review comes across as a bit random because it can be applied to A LOT of other games.

  • BettyBot

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 12:10 pm PT

    I completely understand your points, Matt, and think it's too bad that more people here can't get behind them and demand better games instead of infighting like politicians. As fans people can still represent for their favorite franchise and criticize it at the same time; you're actually doing other fans and the future of the franchise service by recognizing when a game isn't all it could be. I also think it's ridiculous that people react to an 8.8 score as if the game is rated as a flop. The review score isn't the best it could be because the game isn't the best it could be. Do we want reviews that encourage games to be made better or do we want formulaic crap that reviewers insist are great games? Oh, that's right, I forget about how people have reacted to Bush's government policies over the last 6 years - just tell us all is well and pat us on the head like children, that's seems to be what people want in this country.

  • Dinghy_Dog

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 12:14 pm PT

    BettyBot, if you agree that people "demand better games" then how can you say Gears of War is worthy of 9.6? It's a 5-8 hour game and not even that hard. And then you think it's cool for a Tony Hawk game to be passed off as perfect? lol, funny. And what's Zelda have to do with Bush?

  • BettyBot

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 12:17 pm PT

    The Nay-sayer does have a good point comparing the reviews of Gears of War and Zelda Twilight Princess though. I haven't played GoW but I understand from friends that's it great addictive fun, while at the same time it isn't the new Halo and is lacking in certain departments. It seems as if GoW may have gotten a better score because 360 gamers are relieved to have a game that brings life back to multiplayer xbl nights with friends. But, GoW may not be a better game than Zelda:TP if you really broke them down. (Hypothetically, of course, as I haven't played either and only know what friends have said and what I've read.)

  • BettyBot

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 12:21 pm PT

    I think the Zelda score is probably right on and people should take issue with the GoW review instead.

  • Dinghy_Dog

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 12:27 pm PT

    I'm not saying you can compare Zelda with GoW. I don't disagree with the score since I really can't make judgement on it. But when you read it, and then you look at some of the other reviews he's done, you're just shakin your head going "Well, heck, I could do that job.". When you review a game, you shouldn't say "The zelda game should be totally different". Like I said in my blog:

    I play football games to play football, DOOM games to shoot random demons, and Zelda games to run through dungeons. Some stuff just doesn't need to change drastically.

  • TimSpot GameSpot staff member

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 12:37 pm PT

    Best. Soapbox. Ever.

  • Dying_Honor

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 12:38 pm PT

    I agree with Tim, this is so entertaining.

  • Dinghy_Dog

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 12:43 pm PT

    lol, does anyone noticed how nerdy you sound saying "fanboys" on everything? That's more nerdy than someone walking around going "ubber 1337" all day.

  • Beyorkin

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 12:51 pm PT

    I'm on-board with TheNay-Sayer. It just seems that TP is being held up to the masterful OoT while super-generic GoW is getting away with its mediocrity by being the first in its series.

  • Dying_Honor

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 12:55 pm PT

    If you think me saying fanboys sounds nerdy, then you should look at how big of a deal you're making of a little review. This isn't going to stop you from buying it, so what's the big deal. I personally find this entertaining.

  • flickds

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 1:09 pm PT

    Wow Matt, you've confirmed the premonition I've had about this game all along. Even though I'm going to pick it up tomorrow, I guess I'm just gonna have to deal with the fact that it's the same old Zelda. Hopefully this game won't be as derivative as Majora's Mask.

  • king786

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 1:41 pm PT

    How can you hate on a game for perfecting a classic formula?

    It's like criticizing a muffin for not being a cake, some people would just prefer a perfect muffin rather than a cake. This is why I believe GS should have more than one reviewer on any big release, because your always going to have a biased opinion in any review.

    I felt Jeff was looking a bit too hard to find faults with Zelda. I havn't playes the game, but accoriding to the general jist of reviews floating around the interwebs, Zelda is pretty freaking sweet. Why did Jeff feel he had to go against the grain and be differrent just for the sake of it? Because that's what he was doing.

    This type of drama has created an explosion in the forums, I think this may have been GS's intentions. More hits= higher ad revenue but I;d rather not get into such petty arguments.

    And to all those who will criticize me as being a fanboy, I admit I am but all I ask is for a fair review. At times I felt Jeff was reviewing the Wii rather then Zelda. Is that really fair? Doesn't GS criteria state that games are compared with those in their genre and platform? Give me a better adventure series than Zelda? The GS rating system is flawed with reviewers like Jeff. Personally I;d like to hear his own opinions on the whole subject rather than yours Matt.

My Recent Ratings

Title Score
Half-Life 2 9.9
FreeSpace 2 9.7
San Francisco Rush 2049 10
advertisement