>only 22 reviews, only three of which are from contemporary magazines, all three of which are scored as 100s>excluded magazines that scored Ocarina lower like Game Informer's 98 and Nintendo Power's 95 (whose reviews for other games were counted)>included Famitsu's 10/10 even though Famitsu's reviews aren't counted for other games of the era>GamePro is included as a 100 even though they actually gave Ocarina a 98>the Cincinnati Inquirer review is included for some reason>excluded tons of websites that scored Ocarina below 100 like NetJacks (whose reviews for other games were counted)>included retrospectives written by outlets that didn't even exist until years after Ocarina released (like from 2005)>included an outlet that reviewed the Japanese version and couldn't read the text so they just recommended the game but didn't score it, Metacritic counted that review as a 100 Why did Metacritic do this
Look we've been over this countless times, it's a literal cult.
>>12917859Really? Funny I haven't heard this noticed before.
Why do people even care about Metacritic/Game review scores?
>>12918005Do you really see no value in having an aggregate score of different reviews for something?
>>12918042NTA but no. I could not care less about the aggregate opinion of normalfags and cattle.
>>12918042It's okay, but I feel like way too many people treat it as gospel when it really just shows how well a video game can cater to a large group of people. I think reviews can be valuable (e.g. many reviews pointing out a similar flaw), but scores? Not so much.
>>12917859Reminder this got debunkedHere's the actual metascore without the Metacritic bias.
>>12917859>20 fpsYou know a real score wouldn't reach 80
>>12918042Not really, no.What are the qualifications for being a video game critic? There aren't any. Critic reviews are nothing but glorified user reviews. They aren't required to have any understanding of the games they're playing, or even to finish them. Most reviews focus entirely on the most superficial characteristics and completely ignore the question of whether the game they're reviewing is actually enjoyable or not to play.Even when Metacritic features reviews of reasonable quality, the scores they assign to them are completely arbitrary. Scroll down a game's reviews from top to bottom, and at times it can seem completely out of order, with reviews that praise a game in yellow or ones which have serious complaints in green.Add on to the fact that the combined score is calculated by a secret formula that applies unknown weighting to different sources, and you're left with a website that does more to confuse than act as a resource.
>>12918190The human eye can't see more than 20fps
>>12918235But you can still feel them with your other senses
>>12918042>>12918005>>12918065>>12918080>>12918220It's interesting but there is significant weight places on these scores by the industry and ocarina is frequently held up as one of the defining games. It's very much worthwhile investigating how its score works, how it benefits Nintendo today and in the past and how it should be scrutinized.
>>12918042Game critics have sucked for like 15 years now, making metacritic pointless for games.
>>12918005If you want to be an epic contrarian, you have to stay on top of what people like so you remember what you're supposed to hate.
>>12918312That doesn't really matter because it is a broad reaching mechanism in gaming that holds up lots of beliefs and delusions from all kinds of people across and engaged with the industry.Honestly didn't expect such short sighted thinking from /vr/ but it comes off more like a "nothing to see here" plea.
>>12918312>critics suckWhich is why Metacritic is useful, as you can see the aggregate of non-critic reviews to get a quick gauge if a game is well received or not.
>>12917859>Famitsu's 10/10Anon you couldn't even get three lines in without fucking up
>>12918246>t there is significant weight places on these scores by the industryWe. Don't. Care.
>>12918364Alright what gay game was it that you treasured that got trashed across everywhere?
>>12918369Snoic
>>12918397No way this got anything lower than a 9.
>>12918163It's pretty obvious that OoT actually deserves that 98% but Soul Calibur doesn't. Absolutely nobody does on about Soul Calibur, it having a ridiculously high metascore is one only reason it even gets mentioned over its sequels.
>>12918573>It's pretty obvious that OoT actually deserves that 98%It doesn't though, the remake is barely cracking 96% and that's with all the rigging and improvements, if not for the Nintendo + Zelda branding on the box it would be considered a B tier game like Kena Bridge of Spirits or Eternal Strands
>>12918606>kena spirit fuckerPeople told me this was like Zelda so I bought it. It is not like Zelda.
>>12918612and that's why it's a good game.
>>12918628>goodThe game was dull as shit.
>>12918629Yeah there were no Nintendo characters in it, wtf!
>>12918606>the remake is barely cracking 96% and that's with all the rigging and improvementsthat's because they made it worse in every other way besides graphics
>>12917859>>excluded magazines that scored Ocarina lower like Game Informer's 98 and Nintendo Power's 95 (whose reviews for other games were counted)I really don't know why they didn't include them. There's probably some nintendo fans on Metacritic.
>STOP LIKING OCARINA OF TIMEit's so fucking funny how hard this game mindbreaks the users of this board.
>>12918678It shouldn't upset you this much to have people looking into this weird review score.
>>12918683>ur upsetlmao
>>12918686It'll be OK, it's just a number after all. The game doesn't even change when it goes down.
>>12918690it's even funnier how critic scores don't matter for the games you do like, but when it's a game you hate, like ocarina of time, you dedicate your limited time to deep-diving into why the review score is phony or wrong in some way. really interesting behavior.
>>12918694It's fun learning about the history of video games, isn't it?
>>12918697this thread has little to do with the history of video games as a medium. you're seething about journalists from nearly 30 years ago.
>>12918702Is discussion of all old things charged with anger for you?
>>12918703stop projecting your own anger onto me.
>>12918703>>12918705OK now kiss.
>>12918705You keep talking about expressions of anger, I assure you I'm only acting out of curiosity.
>>12918706he needs a kiss from king zora.
>>12918707>i made this thread over butthurt about review scores for a game made nearly 30 years ago and am upset about people liking it. how could i possibly be mad? i'm only acting out of curiosity and anyone who questions otherwise is actually the mad ones.
>>12918710I didn't make the thread, I'm only posting in it. You're running on a lot of assumptions here which might be why you're so upset.>>12918709*smooch* big ol fish lips.
>>12918716>ur upsetagain, lmao.like i said before, this game breaks, rapes and gapes nearly every poster on this board. sorry your favorite game didn't hit the top of metacritic (who gives a shit anyway?).such a weird fixation to have on a singular game and call delving into it's review history "uncovering video game history", like it matters at all. i don't see any threads about calling out review bias for tony hawk's pro skater 2, which is rated just as high on metacritic
>>12918369Anyone who can't answer this question is actually a bot.
>>12918725Tony Hawk 2 doesn't have a cult defending its reviews, which are objectively less weird than ocarinas.
>>12917859How many reviews did other games get at the time for comparisons sake? Late 90s game journo circuit probably wasn't as a big as it's been since the existence of Metacritic
>>12918746~15-20 was average, considering the top-scoring games of 1998.The fact that OoT has 22 reviews isn't really suspect at all.
>>12918746>>12918750It's suspect due to the rest of the list, why does Ocarina have outlets and retrospectives from 5+ years later included, but contemporary magazines excludedIf 5+ year retrospectives are fair game why not retroactively populate every old game's score with every outlet they can find regardless of date, OOT's tiny sample size means no game will ever be able to beat it
>>12918757>and retrospectives from 5+ years later includedliterally one (1) review from 2004 (EGM). Is that what you're so upset about?
>>12918759No it's about the whole list, did you not read either post?
>>12918760I read the whole post, looked at the metacritic reviews and found that you're upset over a single review being included from 2004. Honestly, you should die mad if you're so upset about a good game being received well by critics and audiences.
>>12918760you're arguing with a cultist. you criticized his sacred cow now he's going to go ballistic.
>>12918769Did you get bored of calling people Eric or OoTSnoy on /v/?
