Sheikah

I'd also advise anyone signing up that's not sword bearer to bring maybe 10-15 heavy ammo packs (use your glimmer affecting items during nightfall or spend 10-15 mins in Exclusion Zone). Unless you got a shoot to loot scout.

Yeah, should be. Can we get @Shorty as swordbearer this time? Seems like having an experienced guy handling it makes for a quicker run too. Thursday Let's say 8PM for now. Sheikah Eddage Shorty @Agent Gibbs - still in, right? [space] [space]

I noticed that on the current EG review comment sections. I agree that it will probably die down, a lot of it seems pretty tongue in cheek in trying to condense everything into a number. It's kind of funny but really highlights what a lasting effect having numbers has had on the mindset of people. Like the first thing they think to say isn't about how the game sounds/whether they're excited about the game or not, but what number they think it would mean.

IMO, not doing something that you probably don't really want to do will be more of an achievement/commendable action than if you do it. One small victory over OCD and all that.

The effect of reviews on metacritic is just one piece of the pie. And yeah, we can expect reviewers to change their system because of how their reviews can be used and interpreted. You think publishers are going to change? If something good can come about from it then is it right to wash our hands of it and say "not my problem" how scores are used? Honest question there. The other piece is what Bard has been saying - a number simply doesn't convey the subjective complexities of a game (unlike something like a toaster - it must brown toast efficiently), and the current system is stacked at one end. In my opinion, removing the score gives a much greater incentive for people to read the review, so I'm pretty happy about it. They've still got recommend/essential to flag up games to people with less time who don't want to read reviews of games they don't think will be good.

I'll pass on today. Anyone want to do one on Thursday? 8PM

Don't forget the customary exclamations that you must be 12 years old.

Selective quoting, whut? You said 'it's a bargain in a sense that' then listed a reason that completely wasn't something that could make it a bargain (ie. availability). Even though you went on to say what didn't make it a bargain, that first part was pretty fair game for challenge. All reputable online retailers sold it for that. I got mine for even cheaper than that from ShopTo (<£24). Your entire RRP argument here is pointless because ultimately it's the price that people can reasonably expect to buy these games at that alters their perception. If I can expect to buy 2 HD remasters at £24 in physical form then I would expect a non HD game released digitally to be even less. Or at very most the same, if you're going to argue it's technically a newer game. RRP isn't even something that factors. Ughhh. Man, you really can be testing with points like that. You've said that a game being cheaper digitally than eBay makes it a bargain - how is that a fact? You said that I'm obviously not someone who would appreciate high quality platform games. Again, how is that a fact? (funny, I can discredit that one right now) You said @Wii would suggest they should be priced like app store prices. Again, fact? You argue that PS1 prices are underpriced. Again, fact or opinion? Opinions are fine, but recognise them as such, and don't pretend you present the refined and superior factual argument. I already acknowledged that games are not directly comparable. Don't you remember me saying that Final Fantasy titles rightly are priced higher on PSN than other games? My point was that the scale Nintendo have their games sitting on is too high for me, and I imagine for many here who have said similar feel the same. £17.99 for this game is too high. They could have made it £12 and given space either side for more/less highly regarded games. But here's the thing: everything in life is relative. If I see a game that is priced £50 on release, I view that as expensive and would wait for a price drop. I think this is expensive because I know how much other games cost, and I relate to them. I have in my mind a price I like to pay for games. For digital versions of old games, this is just too much, IMO. I have to respectfully disagree here. I believe the time for them to charge this price was maybe a year or two after when it was first released, still in disc form. I believe that by lowering the price they would sell more and ultimately make more money.

It's not a bargain in any sense at £70 or £115. Just like this isn't a bargain here. Bargain is based on perception; a quick look around this topic and the other one where people are discussing this and you'll see people here don't think this is very good value. Small sample size yadayada but I think that is telling. Just because there are limited distributors it doesn't mean the cheapest seller is automatically offering a bargain. Most sellers were selling it at £24, so that's the price we'll use for the sake of this point. It doesn't matter if they're not 'RRP' (don't even know what the RRP for it was anyway), because most games can be bought for well below RRP in physical form anyway (compared to digital where you're at the mercy of the price dictated by Nintendo). It's a game that came out in 2014 because hey, it's a remaster. Work went into it, which in my opinion more than makes up for the fact the original games are older. And it's still considerably cheaper. And they were physical versions, with manufacturing costs. I'm sorry, but S-E are offering immense value given both are 100+ hour epic games well loved by millions of people. Even if they're not your bag, no sense knocking something that clearly did something very right. All you do by making assumptions like that is make yourself look big-headed. I'm sorry, but do you have any clue how snooty you come across when you say "Of course to you it would feel steep. I highly doubt you have any real appreciation for quality platform games". You sound like a condescending and arrogant snob. You also couldn't be more wrong, because it's no coincidence that I found my way to this site. My roots are very much old Nintendo. And to be honest, my opinion this game is that it was...ok. I wouldn't say it was an incredibly high quality platform game. You want a high quality platform game? Mario 64, Rayman Legends, Mario Sunshine or Galaxy. That shit was tight. People buy the FF games because they're amazing and stood the test of time. The fact a lot of people bought them doesn't prove the higher price is right across the board. Most other games don't have the same prestige so it makes sense they would be lower.

Also don't forget the bunny hood, easily the best thing you can get early on for keeping up with the butler.

I still don't know why you're standing by this line of reasoning... Going back to the previous example, if Suikoden II was placed at £70 on PSN then by your logic that would be a bargain, since disc copies are going for £115. Except, in either case it's not a bargain. The same thing is happening here, albeit less extreme. Its price is beyond what most people would probably value it at; if people don't perceive something to be good value then it's generally not considered to be a bargain. Close enough £24 on release; £12 per game for HD remastered titles versus £17.99 for a single non remastered title here. I'm not trying to have a go, just putting some perspective on why I think this is not worth the asking price. Yeah I know. But if you look at PSN again, most regular PS1 games sell for a few pounds, while some more desirable/highly regarded games like the Final Fantasy titles are £7.99. There can be a range based on what kind of game it is, since people will pay a bit more for those really awesome games, but a £17.99 price tag for this game feels a bit too steep.

I think just you, actually. You're willing to pay a price that it seems mostly everyone else here thinks is a bit of a rip off. Even masterful games like Suikoden II are being sold for £3.99. Final Fantasy X and X-2 remaster sells for around £20, and even did when it was released - that's roughly £10 per game for HD remastered games. Tell me, what makes you think this non remastered game is worth £17.99? You countered the argument by offering up the alternate extreme - app store style valuing of games (99p). Why not toss aside the extremes and deal with the middle ground - £10 ish pricing of Wii games that haven't been remastered? Seems pretty fair to me. I'll tell ya now, a lot more people will bite at a £9.99 price than this!

You mentioned the fact Kirby is being sold for £32.50 on eBay to argue that the £17.99 on the digital store was a bargain. I was not being serious in my response where I used Suikoden as a counter example, just showing you that the logic you used to come to that point was poor. Many people here do not consider that pricing to be sound. Again, not really sure if you just don't understand the economics, but two sellers can both be selling the same thing at different prices, yet both prices can be considered high and not bargains. The fact one is cheaper doesn't really matter.

Majora's Mask well deserved. Well deserved.

By that reasoning, if Suikoden II was being sold at £70 on the PSN store then it'd be a bargain because the disc version will set you back £115+. Still expensive at either price.

@S\.C\.G. - yeah, but the varying prices of Kirby are due to availability of the disc based game, really. I think it's a bit unfair to exploit the rarity of a game in physical form by charging a fair sum digitally. It's kinda like how a disc version of the PS1 game Suikoden II will set you back £115, yet they've just released a digital unremastered version for only £3.99. Because really, for a game of that age, it's kinda what it's worth. In some ways it makes even less sense when you consider the arguably much better games were so much cheaper some weeks ago on Wi, and now the less amazing games are full price.

It's exorbitant at £39.99 and too expensive at £17.99. Whaddya want? :p

£17.99 is too much for a digital version of a 3.5 year old Wii game that hasn't even been remastered, IMO.

I'll take it! Will bring my L32 Warlock.

Yeah I really don't get it. Just cut her out and move on, phones these days have block lists you can add numbers to.

Ey, there's quite a lot you can do on that first day, don't forget!

You might say respectfully, but that actually seems like a pretty disrespectful response. Rather than address his points, all of which certainly have merit and he has justified, you're falling back on the 'you're taking the high and mighty' card. And to not address his responses after criticising me for selecting just a part of your post to address is a bit rich, don't you think? The biggest problem here is that Bard is making these points, but you're essentially ignoring them (or at the very least not addressing them) and saying 'but I like them' (to that effect). Well that's great, but that does not solid argument in their favour make. Maybe some perspective will help - you may like them for whatever reason, but ultimately the case against having them is very strong, because of all the negatives they bring.

Got my MM N3DSXL this morning, going to go check my post box to see if my SDHC was dropped off. Looks great though, can't wait to play MM.

It's called trying to prevent epic long posts, especially useful when I'm not even replying to the rest of your post since what I have to say doesn't really relate it. I picked our part of your post that I found strikingly untrue which is absolutely fine to do so long as it's not taking anything out of context, which it wasn't. I mean, you clearly said that the way they've removed the scores makes the review so ambiguous that you don't really know how much they liked it. That's simply not true if you read the review, and at the very least by reading the text you're more likely to know what they did or didn't like than looking at a number, which could be the result of anything. Yes, you argue for both, but the number is if anything a smack in the face to the review. A 7/10 may as well be considered toxic waste, painting the eyes of the reader before they even read the review (because let's be honest, most people look there first). The score morphs people's expectations - a quick glance at comment boxes and you'll often see 'reads like a 7' or similar. You argue for using both, but then argue that the removal of score makes the review ambiguous. It is the latter comment that I strongly disagree with, and I can pick up on that if I like. Your FIFA example is really bad man, because you've also got to take into account the generations. Theoretically, they should be improving every single title as it's generally a very iterative series. And for the purpose of this argument, let's say they do. So here's the problem, how do you know if the game has improved on the version released last year? If FIFA started out as 7/10 then the only way to present the case that the next game in the series improved, on an /10 scale, is to award 8/10. You see the problem here? Eventually it'll be 10/10. Even if you argue that every game would stay at the same level (ie. 7/10) then that tells you that they stay around the same quality, which is exactly the same thing you'd assume in EGs current system if every game gets no recommendation. With regards to comparing PES and FIFA, it's extremely rare that such a comparison would not be made in the text of whichever review came second; assuming they bother to review both. If one was clearly worth getting over the other, I'm sure they'd mention it. So again, I'd have to disagree with you that you don't get this from the text. Although not quite the same comparison, the nearest thing I can think off about comparable games was Dark Souls 1 and 2 (in the text of DS2 they said it wasn't as good as 1, but still great). With regards to this pretty specific example though, I find it pretty unlikely that most people would care too much for a FIFA review (again, most people) as it's the kind of game people just buy anyway, or buy to play with friends, so this example again seems pretty crappy. With regards to not getting their message... EG typically summarise their thoughts on a game in a conclusion paragraph at the end, and whether they think a game is worth playing or not always comes across in their reviews. With regards to criticising me for ignoring parts of discussions, I'd have to say you're pretty guilty too given you're still arguing the case for review scores without commenting on the negatives Bard just presented. He provides a very compelling argument against both review scores in general and their use in metacritic. To my knowledge, they are also not separate things since I believe having review scores is what enables them to be listed metacritic, and I'm not sure there's even an option to be excluded from it.