It's difficult, but that's why reviewers need to try and be objective. Personally, when I personally "review" over a game, I give an opinion (how I felt with my heart) and then to the best of my ability, an objective side. So with that being said, you CAN distinguish between the two in which is better by analyzing everything from the pacing, characterization, character development, emotion (text descriptions I guess), and whatever else is put into a book review. I hate it when people ask "I can only get one" and the response is "Get both." You are not thinking with your brain then if you can't decide which is better.
I wouldn't say you're thinking with your brain if you can decide, either.
Better isn't really a matter of intellect--only a preference. Like anything else, your mileage will vary as to how well-executed pacing, characterization, etc. was implemented.
But that's the idea of trying to be objective or not. A critic, or any rational person may hate a certain subject, but can still acknowledge the good or greatness in something when they see it. For example, I don't like Portal 2. I forced myself to play through it, and even after finishing it, in my heart, I would say it's a boring game. However, if I stop and pause to look at it, I can acknowledge the game for what it is and understand the things this game does right, and why people would consider it a GOTY.
So when it comes to Zelda, and when reviewers say "This is the best story in a Zelda game." and mark it as a 10/10, well I just shake my head, because you are...
A: Putting Zelda into its own category. I don't see this happen with other games and series. Why does Zelda get its own "story" category? Why is it suddenly exempt from other series in its genres?
B: Inflating the score due to that reason above.
The solution would be to note in your review or statement that some segments of your score will weigh heavier than others. In this case, Zelda's "story" score is not gonna weigh as heavy as say...gameplay. I think IGN does that (shocker), but other sites just average it out.
Ah, good point, good point. I'll concede there.
I'm a bit unclear as to one aspect of your argument, though. Are you saying that reviewers inflate the
overall scores of the game to a 10/10 simply because the story is the best in its own series? Do correct me if I'm wrong, since I don't want to put words in your mouth and present an irrelevant argument based on that conclusion.
My fault. I was not trying to convey the message of effort = better product. All I was saying is that one group cares more about making a certain aspect of their game more standing out than others, so they put more resources into it.
. . .
What I was going to say is that, it also depends on how you manage that effort. Ubisoft has/had 500 people working on Assassin's Creed, and that would easily surplus your argument of Nintendo having a small group, therefore taking a long time to make said game. However, Naughty Dog had only 85 people work on Uncharted 2 and they were able to shell out that game in 2 years, while drastically improving it in every area, AND securing GOTY awards.
Super Mario Galaxy 2 did the exact same thing (albeit in about 2.5 years) and quite possibly around the same staff size as the first. What's your point?
Also, eighty-five people is still quite a considerable staff size for a AAA title, don't you think?
I don't know how Nintendo exactly goes about their development business, but in 2007, they had a higher net worth than Sony, and we all know Sony is not just a gaming company. So to say they can't afford a bigger development team is just outright a bad lie.
I suppose that makes sense, yeah, but a lot can change in five years. We've seen this with overall 2011 sales, meaning one-year's slip-up despite four-plus other years of prosperity almost cost Iwata his job. It's certainly a hit-or-miss business, no doubt.
...Then again, I'm not accounting for the massive losses of the PS3 era. Not sure if Sony's fully recovered from that yet.
So whatever "development" problems Nintendo is having, that's simply an internal battle with how their money is being spent and how they are managing their resources. Though that article makes it clear why we haven't seen another Pikmin, or why we are just seeing a Kid Icarus game come out in the near future. The article also says Nintendo is in it for the money (as is any business.) I'm guessing the chairmen know those games won't sell as well as say, "Mario's 3D Walk In The Park". So yes, I stand true when I say "Nintendo doesn't care."
Because them not caring totally explains how we've been getting consistently-good software for 30+ years. They care for the money, so they just half-*** their software development and just cross their fingers that it'll get positive reception and brand-name word-of-mouth, which is a scenario one would think of when a producer truly just "does not care." Uh-huh.
Snark aside, they sacrifice certain games and franchises for ones that sell better because they more-or-less
have to. If they don't, then they make a risk that could possibly mean heavy losses and potential limitations to make more of their own product, which is a vicious downward spiral if there ever was one. In the meantime, you kind of need to care about your own product. It's one of the best ways to ensure that you'll do your darndest to make that product amazing enough to wow the consumer.
It's a travesty how we didn't get a single Pikmin game, despite it being a good seller. We only got one DK game...which took a while to get to. No Luigi game. Kirby took a while. And now that I think about it, I'm surprised they didn't release another Mario Party with online capabilities. I just don't get Nintendo.
This isn't a continuation of my argument or anything, but...wait, what happened to
Luigi's Mansion 2? O.o
EDIT: Also, before I forget, wasn't another
Pikmin game confirmed for the WiiU?
