The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the KingdomThe reviews are thereand they’re about what you’d expect: unqualified praise for a game that seemingly takes a lot of what made its predecessor great and just does it greater. But if you take a look at Metacritic’s list of review resultsthere is a single outlier: a 6/10.
The Week in Games: Return to Hyrule
Monday 3:53 p.m
It’s over Gfinitys Josh Brown, and at the time of publication it was the only mediocre/yellow rated review for the game on the entire site, a fact you can only confirm after scrolling down what seems like an endless sea of 100’s and 95’s. Of course there are no negative reviews. The excerpt chosen by metacritical
If you haven’t entered Hyrule’s open world yet, Tears of the Kingdom is the best way to experience it, with just enough new territory to keep things interesting. But if you’re not happy with the 2017 release, the story alone might not be worth the second try.
Was that 2006 –when GameSpot’s Jeff Gerstmann had it nerve give Twilight Princess only 8.8/10– that could be one scandal. Luckily most of us have grown a lot since then, both as critics and as people, but that hasn’t stopped a certain level of dismay from reigning zelda Fans who…I don’t know, take a single reviewer’s review as a personal insult? Are pissed that a single 6/10 cost the game astronomically metacritical Total score down a digit or two?
The more psychotic among these fans can never be saved, but I’ve also seen some milder questions about the review, even from other sites, so I felt like I was absolutely clear here: It’s OK. And a A 6/10 rating on a game that everyone else gives 90-100 is a good thing!
Do not wait all Rating scores suck?
I think so! And we as a valve – together with some of our colleagues igamesnews—think so too. Trying to fit the text to a score can often do a disservice, and reducing a game’s “quality” to a single number almost feels like Don Quixote. However, many people still love them and rely on them, so this applies to themselves.
Brown’s review is everything a rated review needs to be: it’s personal, it spells out clearly what he’s saying and why he’s givingIt serves the score and helps anyone who shares those perspectives to understand what the game is about. But it’s also good because it stands on its own.
I can’t believe this needs to be said, but it’s clear: no game is objectively perfect, everyone has different tastes and abilities, and each game responds to them differently. The idea that a game can be unanimously “good” or “bad” is 1995 shit, and we’re better than that. And if it’s not, then you should try.
It’s bad for video games when there’s unanimous praise for a major release, because it doesn’t do the broader target group of video game players a favour. Not everyone likes zeldanot everyone likes everything about it zeldaand it’s important to talk about it and listen to the experiences of others when they do it.
We can and will do so over the coming weeks and months and given the success breath of the wild probably Years through discussions, opinion pieces and whatever, but for many people reviews – and especially rated reviews – are often the ultimate reference for a game. And if no game is perfect, then no review collection should be either.
