This just proves how biased reviewers are today

[VantagE]

Um who cares?

Tyeforce

*ahem* letmesaythisagain... who cares? xD

 

[NGT]

Um who cares?

Tyeforce

*ahem* letmesaythisagain... who cares? xD

Last time i checked, Tyeforce cared.

 

[VantagE]

Um who cares?

Tyeforce

*ahem* letmesaythisagain... who cares? xD

Last time i checked, Tyeforce cared.

Other then him...

 

[NGT]

Um who cares?

Tyeforce

*ahem* letmesaythisagain... who cares? xD

Last time i checked, Tyeforce cared.

Other then him...

No one, because everyone else on this site is mature =)

 

[VantagE]

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep

*ahem* letmesaythisagain... who cares? xD

Last time i checked, Tyeforce cared.

Other then him...

No one, because everyone else on this site is mature =)

Theeeereee ya go thats what I was looking for haha. xD

 

[Tyeforce]

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep

*ahem* letmesaythisagain... who cares? xD

Last time i checked, Tyeforce cared.

Other then him...

No one, because everyone else on this site is mature =)

And this is coming from a troll who was bumping all the threads that I was viewing. Yeah, I saw what you were doing. Rofl.

 

[Bacon Boy]

Quite honestly, I thought Spirit tracks was a pretty good game. It served its purpose for me - road trip game. Short, but it was worth its money; plus all of the sidequests and such made it an interesting game.

Phantom Hourglass on the other hand was annoying and odd because 1) If the Ghost Ship was in Link's world the entire time, how come you never saw tetra's ship? 2) The Temple of the Ocean King reset every time you went into it.

 

[Megamannt125]

Unacceptable. This is truly a disgrace to the Zelda community to say ST is worse than PH. I slap my shoe at them.

 

[ATWA]

oh no someone has an opinion, must be terrible.

i didn't the article by the way

you didn't the article but i accidentally the whole article

i the article

 

[Entei Slider]

So..you're assuming reviewers are biased because you don't like the score that they give your "OMG BEST GAME OF ALL TIME" game?

Um...no? I'm saying that reviewers are contradicting themselves when they give a game's sequel that's almost unanimously accepted as the better game a lower score than its prequel, in this case Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks. The same can be said about New Super Mario Bros. and New Super Mario Bros. Wii, and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games. The sequels are clearly improved upon the originals, yet reviewers ignore their past scores and give the games and even lower score! I could care less what score games get, I'm just pointing out the direction in which reviewers are going today...

Or, It could be that games are getting worse now days.

Lol'd

 

[Yetiman15]

I like how they take note of rating the Gamecube TP but not the Wii Version...

 

[NGT]

I like how they take note of rating the Gamecube TP but not the Wii Version...

Gamecube TP is the true version. The Wii one is just a port. That's why it has bad graphics on the wii.

 

[Yetiman15]

I like how they take note of rating the Gamecube TP but not the Wii Version...

Gamecube TP is the true version. The Wii one is just a port. That's why it has bad graphics on the wii.

I'm just saying that they're different.

I personally think that the wii version is better thanks to the motion controls of the hookshot, bow, and other items. So lets say I think that it diserves two more points which (I believe) would make it be better than Ocaraina of time (Gasp!).

I want to know though... I didn't take the time to read so I'm not sure. But whether or not these are recent reviews and scores or the actual scores these received during their time. I love The original and ALTTP but I'll be completely honest in that I'd much rather play WW, ST, or even MC over them.

 

[-Aaron]

So..you're assuming reviewers are biased because you don't like the score that they give your "OMG BEST GAME OF ALL TIME" game?

Um...no? I'm saying that reviewers are contradicting themselves when they give a game's sequel that's almost unanimously accepted as the better game a lower score than its prequel, in this case Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks. The same can be said about New Super Mario Bros. and New Super Mario Bros. Wii, and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games. The sequels are clearly improved upon the originals, yet reviewers ignore their past scores and give the games and even lower score! I could care less what score games get, I'm just pointing out the direction in which reviewers are going today...

So, you're assuming that because it's a sequel, it deserves a higher score?

 

[Yetiman15]

I don't see what the problem is honestly, it's still an excellent score.

But every other Zelda game has a better score than Spirit Tracks. That's bull. Spirit Tracks was pretty much unanimously better than Phantom Hourglass, yet the reviewers gave Spirit Tracks a lower score! It just shows that reviewers are getting more and more biased. You know that something's not right when New Super Mario Bros. for DS gets a better score than New Super Mario Bros. Wii. It's like reviewers are completely ignoring their past scores.

Maybe because it's basically a repeat game and they've already seen most of the stuff before so it doesn't wow them as much...

Have you even played Spirit Tracks? It doesn't matter if it has similar elements to a past game. A review should be based solely on that game, not other games in the series. Spirit Tracks has many improvements upon Phantom Hourglass, so there's no way it should get a lower score.

Yes, but it's part of a game series, and for a series to work, each game needs to offer something new and fresh, If you have the same old formula every time, it get's old fast. So what if ST has a few new things. Overall, it's too much like the previous games.

Alright I know I'm going to be hated for this but to counter this statement I have to bring up pokemon.

What do the sequels after these games add to the series that weren't in the one before it? I haven't played any Pokemon's outside of Fire Red and Leaf Green which are 1st generation, but I know for a fact that there isn't a lot other than more pokemon, a new world to explore, and wi-fi (which I understand makes the game great <--- Only wi-fi though in my opinion)

Yet each one constantly gets either a higher rating or around the one before it. And the thing is reviewers know this as they mention it in their review going something like this "Nintendo once again sticks to their old formula" almost mocking it.

I understand what Tye's trying to say. I liked Spirit Tracks more than Phantom Hourglass too. For my own reasons though I mean hell I really just prefer Trains over boats

 

[Tyeforce]

So..you're assuming reviewers are biased because you don't like the score that they give your "OMG BEST GAME OF ALL TIME" game?

Um...no? I'm saying that reviewers are contradicting themselves when they give a game's sequel that's almost unanimously accepted as the better game a lower score than its prequel, in this case Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks. The same can be said about New Super Mario Bros. and New Super Mario Bros. Wii, and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games. The sequels are clearly improved upon the originals, yet reviewers ignore their past scores and give the games and even lower score! I could care less what score games get, I'm just pointing out the direction in which reviewers are going today...

So, you're assuming that because it's a sequel, it deserves a higher score?

No. It doesn't deserve a better score just because it's a sequel. There are plenty of sequels that don't live up to their prequels. However, when you have a sequel like Spirit Tracks that is pretty much unanimously called the better game, it should obviously have a better score. >_>

 

[Yetiman15]

So..you're assuming reviewers are biased because you don't like the score that they give your "OMG BEST GAME OF ALL TIME" game?

Um...no? I'm saying that reviewers are contradicting themselves when they give a game's sequel that's almost unanimously accepted as the better game a lower score than its prequel, in this case Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks. The same can be said about New Super Mario Bros. and New Super Mario Bros. Wii, and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games. The sequels are clearly improved upon the originals, yet reviewers ignore their past scores and give the games and even lower score! I could care less what score games get, I'm just pointing out the direction in which reviewers are going today...

So, you're assuming that because it's a sequel, it deserves a higher score?

No. It doesn't deserve a better score just because it's a sequel. There are plenty of sequels that don't live up to their prequels. However, when you have a sequel like Spirit Tracks that is pretty much unanimously called the better game, it should obviously have a better score. >_>

But just because you think it's unanimously better doesn't mean it is. You know?

 

[Tyeforce]

So..you're assuming reviewers are biased because you don't like the score that they give your "OMG BEST GAME OF ALL TIME" game?

Um...no? I'm saying that reviewers are contradicting themselves when they give a game's sequel that's almost unanimously accepted as the better game a lower score than its prequel, in this case Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks. The same can be said about New Super Mario Bros. and New Super Mario Bros. Wii, and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games. The sequels are clearly improved upon the originals, yet reviewers ignore their past scores and give the games and even lower score! I could care less what score games get, I'm just pointing out the direction in which reviewers are going today...

So, you're assuming that because it's a sequel, it deserves a higher score?

No. It doesn't deserve a better score just because it's a sequel. There are plenty of sequels that don't live up to their prequels. However, when you have a sequel like Spirit Tracks that is pretty much unanimously called the better game, it should obviously have a better score. >_>

But just because you think it's unanimously better doesn't mean it is. You know?

Do you even know what the word "unanimous" means? One person can't think that it's "unanimously" better, because in order for something to be unanimous, a group of people have to all agree the same. I'm not speaking for myself here, I'm saying that almost everyone agrees that Spirit Tracks is better than Phantom Hourglass, so it's almost unanimous. Don't take my word for it, ask almost anyone. Spirit Tracks took what Phantom Hourglass had and improved on it; it's better, and that's pretty much a fact. Of course, someone can still prefer Phantom Hourglass over Spirit Tracks, but because the games use the same engine yet Spirit Tracks added and fixed a lot of things, it's clearly the better game. The only reason why that can be said is because the games are so similar. It's not like you're comparing old Sonic games to new Sonic games; there's a very big difference in gameplay and everything there. Here, that's not the case. It's like saying Wii Fit is better than Wii Fit Plus, when Wii Fit Plus is the exact same game as Wii Fit, except with added game modes and features. Obviously, Spirit Tracks isn't the exact same game as Phantom Hourglass with added features, but they're still very similar. Kinda like New Super Mario Bros. and New Super Mario Bros. Wii. Almost anyone will tell you that New Super Mario Bros. Wii was by far the better game, because it took what New Super Mario Bros. had an heavily expanded on it, while still being a similar game.

 

[Kyle]

...
It's only 2%, quit crying little baby man.

 

[Tyeforce]

...
It's only 2%, quit crying little baby man.

It's not the percentage that matters. It's the fact that they gave a sequel that was better than its prequel a better score. >_>