I agree that a lot of reviewers are just human, and get caught up in the hype of games. Occasionally you run into a reviewer that either avoided the hype train or sees through it and gives their honest opinion. Unfortunately even if they aren’t swayed by hype they still have the fallibility of subjective judgment. Even without hype they may not have the same opinion as you, and it’s rare to find a game reviewer who is able to understand a game’s audience and rate the game for them instead of themselves.

You start the article with the quote:
“Maybe I’m just slow to pick up these things, but if I, a video gamer for life, have trouble getting it right, won’t non-gamers? Maybe not. Maybe it’s naturally intuitive for non-gamers, and I am inhibited from approaching it in the same way because I’ve used traditional gaming interfaces, but I doubt it.”

Man, I watched a room full of people take turns at bowling at a large thanksgiving, and it was the genuinely bad bowlers who sucked at it. A few of these people happened to be avid gamers. What was surprising is that people seemed to bowl at about what they would at a bowling alley. It was surreal. The only thing really missing was weight fatigue from the heavy ball. Having seen this (and personally having doubted this reality) I would say that non-gamers really may have the “beginner’s mind” necessary for the Wii. I’m still more skeptical than I let on (gamers understand game concepts like cameras and collision better than non-gamers, etc), and you even admit it’s a possibility, but your trouble with the Wii really could just be your gaming experience. Shit, saying that makes me feel like a new kind of old guy.

Keep up blogabloga,
+ paul

I’m not trying to say that graphics are super important or the most important thing. I think graphics are great icing on the cake, but I play a lot of retro games and enjoy them more than many new games. In fact, I think few games graphically equal Panzer Dragoon Saga for the Saturn, but from a technology standpoint, those graphics aren’t much to look at.

Thanks for the comments!

I think the more interesting issue here is your discussion of game reviewing. I think one of the major problems with game reviews is that there really isn’t a good standard by which to review games. A movie and book are (primarily) linear experiences where it is usually pretty easy to see what the author’s intent is, and it follows a time-worn literary device that has been studied and discussed for centuries. Games are (primarily) non-linear experiences where the viewer is in control. This makes games much more subjective to the person playing them, and thus much more difficult to competently assign worth. This is why all reviews to date break games down into their different areas (graphics, sound, fun, etc), which are much easier to measure. This also allows the reader to determine what is more important to them. You obviously care very much about the graphical level, where for me I care more about a general look (I would call Zelda’s graphics very good, but then again I would say the same for some games that are ten years old).

So, does Zelda deserve the high scores that it got? It depends on how you look at it. Should a game be penalized for sticking with a formula that works and doing a great job with it? What about trying something new that doesn’t work as well as it could have? Or should it just be held to the expectations that surround it? Zelda is obviously sticking with what it knows this time around, and from the sounds of it it does so well. I agree that the linear nature of it can be rather frustrating at times, and this should definitely be noted in the review. It is also up to the reviewer to provide a review that is free from the hype and expectations. This is obviously difficult for some, as there is a lot of hype and marketing push in a relatively small area for many of these games. Also, a lot of reviewers grew up with these games and are extremely passionate, so it is hard to be completely free of any bias. Personally, from your comments about the various reviews, GameSpot (the website I use to check most reviews, personally) sounded like a fair score. Zelda looks like it will be a very good game overall, but it is starting to show its age and doesn’t really add anything new gameplay or story-wise (assuming the latter, haven’t played more than a few hours). It may be hard for fans to accept less than perfection for their favorite games, but that is no reason for a review site to cater to them exclusively. Just my thoughts on the subject.