#*how is knowing a bottom is a bottom problematic* wow i can’t finish a single thought weed and trying to learn welsh has ruined my ability

[cloud-based-and-rainpilled]

Hey remember the time I was put on a terf Google Doc blocklist because I said Aziraphale is a bottom lmaoooo

[breakingarrows]

Feedback on Claim of Bias

"Does Nintendo Get A Pass with Reviews?" KindaFunny Gamescast Ep 111 (Pt. 4) published on March 16, 2017 [Transcript located at the bottom of this post]

The question was posed, "Do Nintendo games get higher scores due to a critic’s nostalgia or bias for Nitnendo?" First off, in regards to Breath of the Wild, I can tell you firsthand nostalgia is not the reason Breath of the Wild is getting high scores. As someone who has played and gotten quickly bored of The Legend of Zelda, Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Twilight Princess, and Minish Cap, I have really enjoyed Breath of the Wild and think it is a very high quality game. I do not have the nostalgia for Nintendo but if I had to review Breath of the Wild I would first have to finish it though I believe (based on my forty hours of playtime) that I would most likely also give it a very high score because I believe it is very good and could back that up with text arguments. Although since I have not finished it, I cannot say anything definitively as far as a review score, just my inclination.

Now does that mean I think those who do not align with my own opinion and do not give Breath of the Wild a very high score are wrong? No. They simply have a separate and different opinion from me. Just as those who complain about a number decreasing on Metacritic for a game they love because one review had a lower-than-average score have no merit, the inverse is true: people who complain about a number increasing on Metacritic for a game they do not enjoy because reviews have been higher-than-average have no merit.

The questioner also states Breath of the Wild was, "praised for features that have been a staple in the industry for five plus years..." I would be curious as to what specific features he has in mind when saying this. Is it the open world? The cooking? The towers? I know these features are not new, but I would argue that they are presented and implemented in such a way that is of a high quality. The open world is large and not empty or contain copy-and-paste side missions. The cooking has a delightful animation and gives me satisfying boosts to combat and general travel that I am happy to engage with. The towers you must climb reveal parts of the map, but do not then go on to fill it with icons for side missions like any Ubisoft open world game and instead pushes the player to actually explore to find things. These are features, elements, and systems we have seen before, but that does not automatically make their implementation banned from praise.

Then we come to Colin. "I do not believe Twilight Princess is a 95/Skyward Sword is a 92/Breath of the Wild is a 98." That is his opinion, but by stating it in regards to the Metacritic number he is calling out those who do believe those games are of high quality as being wrong.

Because Colin does not believe the number should be so high, he does not believe that the reviewers who contributed to that score were correct in their assignment of a number to a game. Not because of the argument made in the text of a review for why a certain score was given, but because Metacritic pumped it into its vague formula and outputted a single number. Metacritic is problematic enough for reducing all opinions and varying scores into a single number for every game. Assigning a baseline number to every game, no matter how varied or different they are from one another, reducing them to a number on the same playing field, is dumb.

"I think there are some critics, some journalists that do as much as they can to try and sell games for Nintendo." I would be very interested to hear who specifically he is talking about, because this really vague statement appears like many comments sections at the bottom of reviews claiming "You are bias for/against X" or “moneyhat” I have a big issue for this given that Colin comes from a background where he knows how the review process works and is an insult to other reviewers who give high scores not because they have some form of stock in Nintendo’s bottom line, no one from major sites listed on Metacritic do, but because they genuinely think the game is amazing and write at length about why they think that.

He makes an example of Ocarina of Time, the last "revolutionary" Zelda game. He uses the phrase “revolutionary” as if it is the only bar by which we judge a game's quality. Not by the overall quality of everything it is and is not doing. Instead a game has to be "revolutionary" in Colin's eyes in order to gain such high praise. It can't simply be doing everything very well.

He also makes an example of Splatoon, saying if it was sold on another platform it would not have done as well, because it was merely "a third person team shooter that you play online…" Not because it was a unique take where instead of trying to kill everyone on the opposing team you are trying to paint the field in colorful ink.

Here's a review sample: "What I love most about Splatoon is how you’re rewarded more for your awareness and willingness to pitch into a team effort than you are for “killing” anything. It’s not like “splatting” your foes isn’t a crucial part of the equation, but after so many multiplayer games in which pure murder is the only measure of success, it’s refreshing to play one – a third-person shooter, no less – that deemphasizes the violence in favor of less direct competition." That was from one Jim Sterling, someone Colin frequently cites as a friend.

By stating Splatoon would have sold less and reviewed lower had it released on a PlayStation platform, he is insinuating that Sterling gave it an 8 out of 10 for being sold on a Nintendo platform. Not because it was, in Sterling's opinion, backed by text, a great game.

Colin also brings back the old faithful word-of-the-day, "objective" which essentially means basing a qualitative review on facts instead of someone’s personal opinion which is, ahem, what reviews are. To have an objective review you cannot state an opinion or viewpoint, instead it merely has to be a listing of the features with no qualitative judgment given. “The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild has graphics. It will sometimes play sounds. There are swords. Etc.” that is what an objective review looks like. Many more can be found at Objectivegamereivews.com

Lastly, "It’s not a 98. I can tell you that from playing it for a couple hours [emphasis mine], no way in God's green earth." Now look, I haven’t completed the game either, and I don’t think you need to complete something this large or 100% it to give an opinion of quality, but if you are going to give a definitive statement such as that, only playing for a couple of hours really discredits your argument.

Bottom line, you’re better than arguments like this. Earlier in the Gamescast you laid out your complaints and problems with the game and gave an argument for why you didn’t think it was that great. However, attempting to undermine other people’s reviews by spouting a pro-Nintendo conspiracy that has no basis in facts, discredits your claims. Statements such as this, and ones from your past regarding games, has severely discredited your opinion since I must think, “Okay does he have an argument to back that up or is he saying it because he feels a certain way but has no cogent argument?” It’s insulting to reviewers who spend lots of time formulating their argument for why they think a game is good for you to undermine them by stating they simply have a bias. You’re smarter than this.

 Transcript

Question: Does Nintendo get a pass, yes it’s a very clickbait question, disclaimer these are just by observations etc. Breath of the Wild currently sits at a 98 on Metacritic with virtually every major outlet giving it a perfect or near perfect score. By all accounts this game is great I'm not trying to dispute that, but I also know that I have heard of many a handful of people in the industry praise Skyward Sword and Twilight Princess and yet those games respectively have a 93 and 95 on metacritic. So my question, and/or discussion topic is this: Do big Nintendo franchises have a tendency to draw out higher scores from reviewers based on virtually every "games journalist" having some kind of childhood nostalgia for Nintendo? Again I'm not saying Skyward Sword or Breath of the Wild is anything other than great but looking from the sidelines it certainly seems like Nintendo gets reviewed in a vacuum and praised for features that have been a staple in the industry for five plus years sometimes.

[Greg and Tim give their answers.]

Colin: "Nintendo clearly deals with a super pro-bias in the gaming industry and has since I joined it. If their game, with the exception of maybe Super Mario Galaxy, would have been scored probably a full point or two points or even lower on Metacritic if they were not a Nintendo platforms, not made by Nintendo. I think Zelda is the great example of that. Twilight Princess is in no way shape or form a 95, and Skyward Sword is in no way shape or form a 92, and I don't believe for one second that this game is in any way shape or form a 98. [How much has he played? "A couple hours"] I was saying, 'Wow welcome to 2008,' just in terms of my initial impressions of Zelda. What is it? I think it’s so obvious that if this wasn't a Zelda game no way would it get 10s. I think that's obvious, people can look at that as anti-Nintendo-bias but I think that there is a strong pro-Nintendo bias in the industry. I think it has something to do with what you said that people grew up with Nintendo and root for them in a way. I think there are some critics some journalists that do as much as they can to try and sell you games for Nintendo. I think that it's kind of shitty, I agree with his insertion that the last time there was a Zelda game that was truly revolutionary was Ocarina of Time. Now my favorite Zelda game is Majora's Mask but it wasn't revolutionary. Ocarina of Time was revolutionary. Just like Mario 64 in its own way was revolutionary and Super Mario Galaxy did something to 3D Mario and made it revolutionary in its own way. But Nintendo is given way too much credit for making these amazing revolutionary games. Like Splatoon was PlayStation only you wouldn't give a fuck about it. If Splatoon was on PlayStation or Xbox One it would have sold a hundred thousand copies probably. Because Nintendo made a third person team shooter that you play online suddenly it’s this revolution. I'm a little tired of it personally. I wish I knew how people really felt about Zelda or how good, I wish there was some sort of objective way of what is this Zelda game it’s not a 98. I can tell you that from playing it for a couple hours, no way in God's green earth. So how would it be scored if it was on a PlayStation? It’s a great question, they're the only company that enjoys that. "