Black Friday may be over, but Steam and CyberMonday are still go! - SWM

Gnintendo quoted our interview, but credited the wrong website.

gonintendo.com/?mode=viewstory&id=166626

Whoops!

look what paranoid gamer has to say about you Willy.

""Obviously nothing to be taken serious, as the interview is with forum users and is meant to be taken in a humor way.""

It's funny, McShea's review initially did make me think maybe Skyward Sword may have some problems, but this interview just confirmed to me that I will like the game.

See I've played the demo, and to me it controls well. I had no problem making easy work of my enemies, and I never had the problems that McShea speaks of. Of course, I've only played the demo and so I could be wrong to some extent.

But Tom's desire of a less linear Zelda just makes me laugh. I wouldn't review Skyrim and expect a main quest as engrossing as a Zelda game, and I wouldn't review a Zelda game and expect a great deal of freedom. I think it's funny that he has a negative connotation to playing a game "exactly as the developers wanted." I actually prefer to play an adventure with the developer in God's seat, the same way I like to listen to music exactly as the band intended (Beatles tunes in mono, baby). In other words, the sense of direction feels like part of the art to me.

McShea is still entitled to his opinion, all I'm saying is this interview only confirms to me that his review has no impact on my opinion. To be honest, this interview makes me think he's a bit of an idiot. But that's just my "objective" opinion. Hah.

Good interview. It would've been nice to know more about how he calculates his scores, though. I think the issues with GS's scores (and what makes SW so exciting) is that there's very little consistency: it seems like games are broken down into their three-point system score (ie 1-6.5=terrible, 7-8.5=average/good 9-10=great) and then the reviewer picks the final score by throwing a dart at the corresponding board.

This is especially true when you consider his recent Uncharted 3 review, because the games are quite similar in a lot of ways. The UC series has always been known for less-than-spectacular controls (not to say they're bad, but the aiming has never been as good as other top-tier shooters, the cover has always been too sticky, the contextual commands aren't always on point and it features the standard TPS platforming wonkyness) and considering Naughty Dog's design formula is literally "think up set-pieces and shoe-horn in a story to connect them" it's a pretty damn formulaic series at this point. So what makes UC3 a 9.0 Editors Choice Goatee Candidate and Zelda a 7.5 Just Good?

It's funny, McShea's review initially did make me think maybe Skyward Sword may have some problems, but this interview just confirmed to me that I will like the game.

See I've played the demo, and to me it controls well. I had no problem making easy work of my enemies, and I never had the problems that McShea speaks of. Of course, I've only played the demo and so I could be wrong to some extent.

But Tom's desire of a less linear Zelda just makes me laugh. I wouldn't review Skyrim and expect a main quest as engrossing as a Zelda game, and I wouldn't review a Zelda game and expect a great deal of freedom. I think it's funny that he has a negative connotation to playing a game "exactly as the developers wanted." I actually prefer to play an adventure with the developer in God's seat, the same way I like to listen to music exactly as the band intended (Beatles tunes in mono, baby). In other words, the sense of direction feels like part of the art to me.

McShea is still entitled to his opinion, all I'm saying is this interview only confirms to me that his review has no impact on my opinion. To be honest, this interview makes me think he's a bit of an idiot. But that's just my "objective" opinion. Hah.

Flapjak

All I'm saying is that his opinions on the Zelda series just confirm that he's not looking for what I'm looking for in a game, Zelda or not. So his review doesn't really matter to me. I think his review probably shouldn't matter to a lot of people, and that's why it's really no big deal this guy dislikes SS. And while he may not use the word "freedom" in his review one of his biggest complaints is predictability. Finally, perceived humiliation? The game is still rocking a 95 on Metacritic. Not that that **** should matter, but I'm pretty sure Zelda would be fine if Gamespot put up a score of 2.3 at this point.

From what I have played the game is anything but a 7.5 more like a 9.5 so far it could be my favourite game of the year I love it.

Good interview. It would've been nice to know more about how he calculates his scores, though.PBSnipes

Under the score in every review, we have a link you can click on to see our guidelines. A game in the 7 range is described as "good overall, and likely worth playing by fans of the particular genre or by those otherwise interested. While its strengths outweigh its weaknesses, a game that falls in this range tends to have noticeable faults."

My hands are kind of tied with scores. We have certain criteria we have to follow so I can't just give out any number I want. When I submit a review for QA (a process where everyone on staff reads and weighs in on my thoughts), I do so without a score, and see what they think it sounded like. In the case of SS, everyone confirmed my belief that this really is a Good game. It would have been much easier if I had slapped on an 8.5 to the same text, and I would have gotten far less grief for it, but I want to be as informative as possible.

So, yeah, the score is the last part of a review and the entire staff talks about where this number should fall. SS has strengths but serious weaknesses, so it's firmly in the Good range. Because I really enjoyed it, I made it a 7.5 instead of a 7.0, but anything above that would contradict my evaluation.

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]Good interview. It would've been nice to know more about how he calculates his scores, though.TomMcShea

Under the score in every review, we have a link you can click on to see our guidelines. A game in the 7 range is described as "good overall, and likely worth playing by fans of the particular genre or by those otherwise interested. While its strengths outweigh its weaknesses, a game that falls in this range tends to have noticeable faults."

My hands are kind of tied with scores. We have certain criteria we have to follow so I can't just give out any number I want. When I submit a review for QA (a process where everyone on staff reads and weighs in on my thoughts), I do so without a score, and see what they think it sounded like. In the case of SS, everyone confirmed my belief that this really is a Good game. It would have been much easier if I had slapped on an 8.5 to the same text, and I would have gotten far less grief for it, but I want to be as informative as possible.

So, yeah, the score is the last part of a review and the entire staff talks about where this number should fall. SS has strengths but serious weaknesses, so it's firmly in the Good range. Because I really enjoyed it, I made it a 7.5 instead of a 7.0, but anything above that would contradict my evaluation.

Well it's a relief to know the score comes last I can't really hate on the score/review much more although I wish there was a little more substance and detail regarding the actual structure and side quests. All in all I wish you would have clarified that the controls are good but because they aren't absolutely perfect you didn't enjoy them because reading the review really makes it seem like they are almost down right broken.

[QUOTE="TomMcShea"]

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]Good interview. It would've been nice to know more about how he calculates his scores, though.Jolt_counter119

Under the score in every review, we have a link you can click on to see our guidelines. A game in the 7 range is described as "good overall, and likely worth playing by fans of the particular genre or by those otherwise interested. While its strengths outweigh its weaknesses, a game that falls in this range tends to have noticeable faults."

My hands are kind of tied with scores. We have certain criteria we have to follow so I can't just give out any number I want. When I submit a review for QA (a process where everyone on staff reads and weighs in on my thoughts), I do so without a score, and see what they think it sounded like. In the case of SS, everyone confirmed my belief that this really is a Good game. It would have been much easier if I had slapped on an 8.5 to the same text, and I would have gotten far less grief for it, but I want to be as informative as possible.

So, yeah, the score is the last part of a review and the entire staff talks about where this number should fall. SS has strengths but serious weaknesses, so it's firmly in the Good range. Because I really enjoyed it, I made it a 7.5 instead of a 7.0, but anything above that would contradict my evaluation.

Well it's a relief to know the score comes last I can't really hate on the score/review much more although I wish there was a little more substance and detail regarding the actual structure and side quests. All in all I wish you would have clarified that the controls are good but because they aren't absolutely perfect you didn't enjoy them because reading the review really makes it seem like they are almost down right broken.

[QUOTE="Jolt_counter119"]

[QUOTE="TomMcShea"]

Under the score in every review, we have a link you can click on to see our guidelines. A game in the 7 range is described as "good overall, and likely worth playing by fans of the particular genre or by those otherwise interested. While its strengths outweigh its weaknesses, a game that falls in this range tends to have noticeable faults."

My hands are kind of tied with scores. We have certain criteria we have to follow so I can't just give out any number I want. When I submit a review for QA (a process where everyone on staff reads and weighs in on my thoughts), I do so without a score, and see what they think it sounded like. In the case of SS, everyone confirmed my belief that this really is a Good game. It would have been much easier if I had slapped on an 8.5 to the same text, and I would have gotten far less grief for it, but I want to be as informative as possible.

So, yeah, the score is the last part of a review and the entire staff talks about where this number should fall. SS has strengths but serious weaknesses, so it's firmly in the Good range. Because I really enjoyed it, I made it a 7.5 instead of a 7.0, but anything above that would contradict my evaluation.

GunSmith1_basic

Well it's a relief to know the score comes last I can't really hate on the score/review much more although I wish there was a little more substance and detail regarding the actual structure and side quests. All in all I wish you would have clarified that the controls are good but because they aren't absolutely perfect you didn't enjoy them because reading the review really makes it seem like they are almost down right broken.

Well that's just false. From most people here that's played it waggling is what causes the problems not playing slow and intelligently and in fact it's very responsive. The only real recuring problem I've heard is the forward slash gives the most problems.

You don't need to explain yourself to these haters, Tom. Some of them refuse to believe that this game is anything less than the greatest Zelda game of all time. They haven't played it themselves, but insist that you must have played the game improperly. Personally, I think it's a mediocre Zelda and agree with your score, although I think you focus too much on the control issues and too little on the linearity and absolute lack of exploration.ActionRemix

You don't need to explain yourself to these haters, Tom. Some of them refuse to believe that this game is anything less than the greatest Zelda game of all time. They haven't played it themselves, but insist that you must have played the game improperly. Personally, I think it's a mediocre Zelda and agree with your score, although I think you focus too much on the control issues and too little on the linearity and absolute lack of exploration.ActionRemix

This is awesome i got featured in the magazine, under Super Mario Flop !!!!

"Oh noes its a flop of the century." said Telefanatic.

Tom I have a question regarding reviews in general.

I know Kevin said a while back something like once that PCs were held to higher standards so as to say that a higher scoring PC game is inherently better than a higher scoring console game.

1) Is that still true?

2) Does that same philosophy hold true with the hardware gap between the HD twins and the Wii?

3) Does that also mean handheld games are rated on a different scale?

4) What about the thought put into reviewing DLC? Does DLC have it's own 10 point scale as well?

This is awesome i got featured in the magazine, under Super Mario Flop !!!!

"Oh noes its a flop of the century." said Telefanatic.

telefanatic

Tom is here :oTheGuardian03

[QUOTE="TheGuardian03"]Tom is here :oBrunoBRS

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]Good interview. It would've been nice to know more about how he calculates his scores, though.TomMcShea

Under the score in every review, we have a link you can click on to see our guidelines. A game in the 7 range is described as "good overall, and likely worth playing by fans of the particular genre or by those otherwise interested. While its strengths outweigh its weaknesses, a game that falls in this range tends to have noticeable faults."

My hands are kind of tied with scores. We have certain criteria we have to follow so I can't just give out any number I want. When I submit a review for QA (a process where everyone on staff reads and weighs in on my thoughts), I do so without a score, and see what they think it sounded like. In the case of SS, everyone confirmed my belief that this really is a Good game. It would have been much easier if I had slapped on an 8.5 to the same text, and I would have gotten far less grief for it, but I want to be as informative as possible.

So, yeah, the score is the last part of a review and the entire staff talks about where this number should fall. SS has strengths but serious weaknesses, so it's firmly in the Good range. Because I really enjoyed it, I made it a 7.5 instead of a 7.0, but anything above that would contradict my evaluation.

[QUOTE="TomMcShea"]

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]Good interview. It would've been nice to know more about how he calculates his scores, though.fueled-system

Under the score in every review, we have a link you can click on to see our guidelines. A game in the 7 range is described as "good overall, and likely worth playing by fans of the particular genre or by those otherwise interested. While its strengths outweigh its weaknesses, a game that falls in this range tends to have noticeable faults."

My hands are kind of tied with scores. We have certain criteria we have to follow so I can't just give out any number I want. When I submit a review for QA (a process where everyone on staff reads and weighs in on my thoughts), I do so without a score, and see what they think it sounded like. In the case of SS, everyone confirmed my belief that this really is a Good game. It would have been much easier if I had slapped on an 8.5 to the same text, and I would have gotten far less grief for it, but I want to be as informative as possible.

So, yeah, the score is the last part of a review and the entire staff talks about where this number should fall. SS has strengths but serious weaknesses, so it's firmly in the Good range. Because I really enjoyed it, I made it a 7.5 instead of a 7.0, but anything above that would contradict my evaluation.

Because there are some negatives that detract or reduce the fun experience you have in the game?

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"][QUOTE="TheGuardian03"]Tom is here :oHeil68

You don't need to explain yourself to these haters, Tom. Some of them refuse to believe that this game is anything less than the greatest Zelda game of all time. They haven't played it themselves, but insist that you must have played the game improperly. Personally, I think it's a mediocre Zelda and agree with your score, although I think you focus too much on the control issues and too little on the linearity and absolute lack of exploration.ActionRemix

Tbh, though I'm sure I'll be stoned to death by Zelda faithful, I'm kind of glad it is more linear.

But maybe because I'm playing such a huge game like Skyrim, which is completely open, I'm actually craving a more linear experience. Maybe it will end up being a little too linear for my tastes, but from reading your thoughts on the game over in the hype thread, I think this may be just the right medicine. Again, I know that Zelda has always been about having room to explore, but I don't really find myself craving that in games much anymore.

Case in point, when I played OoT as a kid (I was 12), I gleefully sought out every single secret and would spend hours away from the temples and main quest trying to unearth Hyrule's secrets. Same when I played A Link to the Past when I was around 8 or 9. However, in my recent play through of OoT 3D I found myself not exploring the world at all and just going through the main quest-line in a linear fashion. I'm not seeking out hearts, power-ups, or anything unless they present themselves to me along my narrow, single-minded path.

I guess one could argue I feel this way because I've played the game before and explored what it has to offer so thoroughly, but I don't think so. I just don't feel the need to. I don't have that urge to seek out every nook and cranny, nor the prodding regret when I don't. And this is any game. Hell, even in Skyrim I've only spent about 2 hours exploring with no clear goal in mind in my 18 hours in game. I've mostly been seeking out quest lines to put me on a more focused path.

-shrugs- Just me, though.

[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]If this game was reviewed for what it is, ignoring past games, what would it have scored?sailor232

If you read the reviewing process it actually states they cannot hold a game up or compare it too its past games.

"First and foremost, our reviews are an assessment of one particular game at a time. We approach each review assignment without assuming anything about the quality of the game, irrespective of prerelease preview coverage, the history of any previous games in the series, any perceptions about the developer's or publisher's track records, and so forth. That is, every game we review gets a fair shake, and is treated with the same level of care and attention with which we approach every review assignment."

Under the score in every review, we have a link you can click on to see our guidelines. A game in the 7 range is described as "good overall, and likely worth playing by fans of the particular genre or by those otherwise interested. While its strengths outweigh its weaknesses, a game that falls in this range tends to have noticeable faults."

My hands are kind of tied with scores. We have certain criteria we have to follow so I can't just give out any number I want. When I submit a review for QA (a process where everyone on staff reads and weighs in on my thoughts), I do so without a score, and see what they think it sounded like. In the case of SS, everyone confirmed my belief that this really is a Good game. It would have been much easier if I had slapped on an 8.5 to the same text, and I would have gotten far less grief for it, but I want to be as informative as possible.

So, yeah, the score is the last part of a review and the entire staff talks about where this number should fall. SS has strengths but serious weaknesses, so it's firmly in the Good range. Because I really enjoyed it, I made it a 7.5 instead of a 7.0, but anything above that would contradict my evaluation.

TomMcShea

So what's the rationale behind that system? I can see the appeal in terms of trying to keep a more consistent GS scoring standard (instead of getting into things like "oh, an 8.0 from Tom is like a 9.0 from Kevin"), but on the other hand it seems odd to marginalize the author like that, especially considering they're likely the only person who has spent enough time with the game to really understand what makes it tick.

[QUOTE="ActionRemix"]You don't need to explain yourself to these haters, Tom. Some of them refuse to believe that this game is anything less than the greatest Zelda game of all time. They haven't played it themselves, but insist that you must have played the game improperly. Personally, I think it's a mediocre Zelda and agree with your score, although I think you focus too much on the control issues and too little on the linearity and absolute lack of exploration.TreyoftheDead

Tbh, though I'm sure I'll be stoned to death by Zelda faithful, I'm kind of glad it is more linear.

But maybe because I'm playing such a huge game like Skyrim, which is completely open, I'm actually craving a more linear experience. Maybe it will end up being a little too linear for my tastes, but from reading your thoughts on the game over in the hype thread, I think this may be just the right medicine. Again, I know that Zelda has always been about having room to explore, but I don't really find myself craving that in games much anymore.

Case in point, when I played OoT as a kid (I was 12), I gleefully sought out every single secret and would spend hours away from the temples and main quest trying to unearth Hyrule's secrets. Same when I played A Link to the Past when I was around 8 or 9. However, in my recent play through of OoT 3D I found myself not exploring the world at all and just going through the main quest-line in a linear fashion. I'm not seeking out hearts, power-ups, or anything unless they present themselves to me along my narrow, single-minded path.

I guess one could argue I feel this way because I've played the game before and explored what it has to offer so thoroughly, but I don't think so. I just don't feel the need to. I don't have that urge to seek out every nook and cranny, nor the prodding regret when I don't. And this is any game. Hell, even in Skyrim I've only spent about 2 hours exploring with no clear goal in mind in my 18 hours in game. I've mostly been seeking out quest lines to put me on a more focused path.

-shrugs- Just me, though.

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]Good interview. It would've been nice to know more about how he calculates his scores, though.TomMcShea

Under the score in every review, we have a link you can click on to see our guidelines. A game in the 7 range is described as "good overall, and likely worth playing by fans of the particular genre or by those otherwise interested. While its strengths outweigh its weaknesses, a game that falls in this range tends to have noticeable faults."

My hands are kind of tied with scores. We have certain criteria we have to follow so I can't just give out any number I want. When I submit a review for QA (a process where everyone on staff reads and weighs in on my thoughts), I do so without a score, and see what they think it sounded like. In the case of SS, everyone confirmed my belief that this really is a Good game. It would have been much easier if I had slapped on an 8.5 to the same text, and I would have gotten far less grief for it, but I want to be as informative as possible.

So, yeah, the score is the last part of a review and the entire staff talks about where this number should fall. SS has strengths but serious weaknesses, so it's firmly in the Good range. Because I really enjoyed it, I made it a 7.5 instead of a 7.0, but anything above that would contradict my evaluation.

Zelda is not actually the biggest flop in Gamespot history. Shenmue was hyped for two generations straight (it was originally for Sega Saturn, but then delayed for the Dreamcast). It was going to be like real life, the most realistic and amazing videogame ever made. It was going to take over the world. It got a 6. Funnily enough, the reviewer actually made a mistake in the review, and then raised the score to a 7.8.Willy105

A 6!? Is that true?

I saw a really informative post on another website citing why Tom and the rebuttal guy had different experiences:

A lot of people are going to have responsive issues with this and I'll explain why:

The problem lies in that the WiiMotionPlus alone cannot track the position of the Wiimote in 3D space. This isn't like the Kinect or the PSMove. Yes, the Wii can know the device's orientation and tilt, but it doesn't really know what "front" is. The problem is somewhat solved by keeping the Wiimote pointed at the sensor bar for a bit. At this point, the sword will reposition itself. It's no coincidence the video was showing only thrusts. This was somewhat sneaky.

Nintendo knows this and the best they did was add a "Press D-pad down to center." If the the controls were meant to work 100%, then why is that option there at gameplay time? It's not a menu option.

Now, if you forget to occasionally point the Wiimote straight at the TV, you'll have response issues. Some people naturally play while pointing at the screen. Watch the guy when he fights, he points forward while he "idles." I don't do this naturally, but I make the exception for this game. Also, you have to sit further away from your sensor for the Wiimote not to lose track of the sensor bar often. This is a pain for me because I play with a 42" TV on my desk with less than 3 feet distance between me and the sensor bar.

Of course if you sit 10 feet away (like the guy in the video) it'll work flawlessly. I just don't want to reorganize my office/living room just for one game, so I deal with it.

Maybe one day there's be a Super WiiMotionPlus with a magnetic compass in it. User

nvm, glitchspot

I saw a really informative post on another website citing why Tom and the rebuttal guy had different experiences:

[QUOTE="User"]

A lot of people are going to have responsive issues with this and I'll explain why:

The problem lies in that the WiiMotionPlus alone cannot track the position of the Wiimote in 3D space. This isn't like the Kinect or the PSMove. Yes, the Wii can know the device's orientation and tilt, but it doesn't really know what "front" is. The problem is somewhat solved by keeping the Wiimote pointed at the sensor bar for a bit. At this point, the sword will reposition itself. It's no coincidence the video was showing only thrusts. This was somewhat sneaky.

Nintendo knows this and the best they did was add a "Press D-pad down to center." If the the controls were meant to work 100%, then why is that option there at gameplay time? It's not a menu option.

Now, if you forget to occasionally point the Wiimote straight at the TV, you'll have response issues. Some people naturally play while pointing at the screen. Watch the guy when he fights, he points forward while he "idles." I don't do this naturally, but I make the exception for this game. Also, you have to sit further away from your sensor for the Wiimote not to lose track of the sensor bar often. This is a pain for me because I play with a 42" TV on my desk with less than 3 feet distance between me and the sensor bar.

Of course if you sit 10 feet away (like the guy in the video) it'll work flawlessly. I just don't want to reorganize my office/living room just for one game, so I deal with it.

Maybe one day there's be a Super WiiMotionPlus with a magnetic compass in it. Sky-

Mc Shea can you make a Zelda Wii motion tutorial video... I really want to learn to play the game like the best of them. clutchhitta7

I total agree with Tom Review.....a fair and honest review for the Zelda: Skyward Sword.

[QUOTE="clutchhitta7"]Mc Shea can you make a Zelda Wii motion tutorial video... I really want to learn to play the game like the best of them. Eponique

I total agree with Tom Review.....a fair and honest review for the Zelda: Skyward Sword.

AtariKidX

You agree with someone's opinion about a game that you've never played, simply because he flopped it?

[QUOTE="AtariKidX"]

I total agree with Tom Review.....a fair and honest review for the Zelda: Skyward Sword.

ChubbyGuy40

You agree with someone's opinion about a game that you've never played, simply because he flopped it?

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="AtariKidX"]

I total agree with Tom Review.....a fair and honest review for the Zelda: Skyward Sword.

ActionRemix

You agree with someone's opinion about a game that you've never played, simply because he flopped it?

Same could be said for UC3, and now that's supposedly worse than UC2.

Tom has made only one real misstake. Giving that pice of **** Halo ODST a freaking 9.

I pretty much agree with all of hes other reviews.At 1st I was kinda upset about infamous 2 getting 7.5 and Uncharted 3 not getting more then a 9 after I saw IGN gave it a 10 but after playing bout games I completely agree with hes rviews.

Hes a good reviewr but fanboys are in denial as always.