When a Spiderduck staff member gives a game the illustrious "perfect" score, they must write up their reasoning behind the decision. Marcus gives his three reasons for A Link Between Worlds. Do you agree?
To all that approval and read, thank you once again for your support!
I have it and like it a lot but IMO, No game has ever been perfect. If you can find even one flaw or one thing that could be improved then it CAN'T be perfect. I still think it was a good read though.
Perfect score =/= perfect game. No point in using a ten point scale if you can't give a tenner.
I know but I'm saying I don't think there will ever be a perfect game, so a 9.9 is the closest we will ever or should ever get. Just my opinion though, not fact.
Good read, glad to see your reasoning behind giving it your score. It truly is a fantastic game, and I have only scratched the surface on it.
It really is Zelda in its perfect form, weightless and effortless TLOU is my GOTY and my 2nd favourite GOTG, but Zelda really pushed TLOU for first place
Link between worlds is really something special. It follows the Zelda formula but adds in some great mechanics with the wall-merging. Its a good read and I totally agree with the score. I cant put it down! Worst addiction since Fire Emblem Awakening.
I love that mechanic. It reminded me of Crush. http://www.youtube.com/watc...
You shouldn't have to justify that one. It's a great game. It's not one of my tops of the year, but it brought me back to A Link To The Past, which is my favorite Zelda title.
"You shouldn't have to justify that one." Honestly, they shouldn't do an article rationalizing why it got a perfect score. The point of reviews are to typically explain why a game got whatever score, so to have an article justifying why a game got a perfect score basically says their reviews are poorly written to a point where two articles are needed to justify a single stance.
And yet, I got the disagrees...
I see where you may be going with this, again, it's just to examine the issues from other known publications and explain why those issues aren't problematic to the reviewer. Perfect scores are a big deal, we believe they deserve something extra.
It's just something our website does to show why we believe in the perfect score rather than just handing it out.
@ your other comment "I see where you may be going with this, again, it's just to examine the issues from other known publications and explain why those issues aren't problematic to the reviewer." Isn't that very holier than thou and extremely arrogant? I mean, if some no name site (no offense to your site) was to write an article about why my opinion was invalid next to theirs, then I would probably deck that arrogant ****. Take your rental system. I saw that as a problem, because it it diminished replayablity and questing. In the past, you would typically see routes / places / things you were unable to get at the time and would need to return to with the proper equipment to get. In ALBW, you just need enough cash to rent everything and then you can go practically anywhere (besides the few items you can't rent). This was not an issue covered, nor did I see the reviewer mention that you get upgraded versions of the items you buy, which is your incentive to buy them. It was just about how the system added challenge (though this is only true if you want to rent everything all at once. It's extremely doable to just rent whatever you need and leave out things like the boomerang). The victory lap statement has nothing to do with the games quality, so it's ultimately a my opinion ≥ your opinion. If this person thought it was that way, then thats their opinion. This is similar to those that complain Super Mario 3D World isn't innovative enough for Mario. Sure, I don't agree with the notion that every 3D Mario game needs to reinvent the wheel, but that doesn't mean they're wrong and I am right, nor does that prevent SM3DW from being a 10, 9 or 8 out of 10 game either. The final statement I believe was in reference to people that prefer 3D Zelda games and felt that ALBW was a step backwards. Again, this has nothing to do with the games actual quality and really feels like the writer is trying too hard to undercut others. Look, I understand that they're trying to rationalize their score again, but they do a ****ty job doing it. Their stance on the inventory system should have been in the review and the other two points feel like cherry picked examples that they pulled out of the previous reviews (regardless of context) and basically started a counter point against them. With that being said, it just seems immature and counter productive and is enough for me to never read your site again. You get to the "top" by having good writers and well thought out pieces, not rationalizing what your opinion is better than the highest ranking sites, especially when most of the stance is 100% opinionated and not always grasping the full gravity of the situation (going back to my point on the rental system).
A Link Between Worlds was an amazing game. Zelda is my favorite video game series, but somehow they seem to impress me with every game. I enjoyed being the wall merging mechanics in this game. That was a really cool addition. The storyline was really good as well. It was just an all around great game.
Because A Link Between Worlds is a fantastic example of game design because literally every aspect of the game is top notch and memorable. Especially the character design and world that they built. I'd even be willing to purchase a wii U if they released a graphical overhaul of this game on that console with new content. That's how much I loved it.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.