How can a remaster with better framerate and QoL changes get a lower review than the original?

how can a remaster with better framerate and QoL changes get a lower review than the original?

Attached: w010.png (1137x503, 174.69K)

because review scores are not a reliable metric

Probably different reviewers.
But people are going to come in here and cry Nintendo bonus even though there is no Nintendo bonus, just a zelda bonus

i dunno if you can read but look at the negatives

>posting Gamespot
They're almost as bad as IGN. What are you doing, op?

Because review sites have to throw down an abysmal score every once in a while in order to appear like actual critics. Ever notice how people will defend these reviews that give the same AAA garbage 8’s and 9’s by pointing out that they gave under the radar title from no name Japanese dev a 2.3/10? W101 port is by a more established dev studio but it’s a port that they can rip into so no one questions why they give tlou2 a 10/10 when it’s a glorified movie with fighty bits in between the story content.

>What are you doing, op?
shitposting

Negatives almost always are a metric for weighing the reviewer's intelligence, and not actually the faults of the game.

Attached: 1589217825043.png (820x1200, 763.31K)

Where's the nintenbonus? WTF? THIS IS NOT IN LINE WITH MY AGENDA NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Game reviewers are getting dumber. Games pretty much have to be movies to review well.

>gamespot
there's your problem

Soul bonus.

>those negatives
FILTERED
This nigga probably didn't even use the analog sticks to draw.

obviously the reviewer sucks at the game and is knocking it for the games depth to its combat but are there really any technical issues to worry about?
is the framerate better? loading times faster than the Wii U version? thats all I care about

Fool. It IS a Nintendo bonus. It only applies to exclusives. Guess what isn't exclusive anymore.

>the only review that actually knows how to play the game
>gets a 9
based

Attached: 1589388162649.png (1274x716, 1.65M)

How the fuck were they able to, in just 2 months(!), to get this running on 3 consoles and release it? Kickstarter ended in March and release in May. Fucking Jap magic.

Attached: 1577163169893.jpg (816x404, 130.63K)

nintendo reviews make no sense at all

Its getting better reviews from any other page but gamespot

how retarded are you??

Journalists/Switch owners are so casual that they can't find the easy mode.

Attached: journalist mode.jpg (504x222, 29.89K)

user the game was done since last year. The kick starter was just a way to sell it and get back the money they used to make the remake

Sooo the kickstarter was just a big pre-order?
That's stupid...

Attached: 1584134550177.jpg (1024x1024, 75.6K)

They had already done the work to make the ports they just needed money for publishing and distribution. They expected to get the money they spent on porting them over back in sales but they didn’t have liquid capital to actually get in into stores.

>Sooo the kickstarter was just a big pre-order?
Everyone paid 40 dlls and got a 40 dlls game. It was literally a huge preorder campaing with preorder rewards

Framerate on PC is solid and stable.
Loading times are a thing of beauty. I can rarely get off a single Unite Morph in the time it takes to go to 0 to 100%.

Only technical issues I've run into is that it seems to crash at odd times, with my running theory that it only occurs after around 6~ish hours of runtime.

yes

Never played this game but "under-explained mechanics" is a giga-redflag. Was the reviewer a hole?

Attached: 1589246138011.jpg (285x298, 37.25K)

>how can a remaster with better framerate and QoL changes get a lower review than the original?
When they forget the bribe

IGN gave the remaster a 9 though, and gave the original a 7.

fpbp

Thats because they actually played it on PC and not just the Switch.

>They didn't have $100 to put it on Steam

ok