>>12357976
I think you're a loser.

It's a very weird game to think about. It was probably one of the most hyped games ever, and was a critical and commercial smash hit. People online went fucking rabid when they saw it get rated an 8/10 by Jeff Gerstmann.
Nowadays it feels pretty forgotten, and I see it completely written off because the segment before the first dungeon goes on too long.

>>12358008
Funny, Majora's mask also gets shit for this but somehow a link to the past doesn't.

>>12358008
it's just the wolf segments that people didn't like because the gameplay is just not that good when in wolf form. People just wanted to do regular human stuff and dreaded the wolf segments in-between.

>>12357976
>retro console Nintendo GameCube
>GC
>retro
pick one

8.8/10

>>12358061
decimal scores are fucking retarded, like why wasn't it 8.7 or 8.9 instead?

>>12358056
Okay
>retro console Nintendo GameCube

File: 1656304329324.gif (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB GIF

>>12358079

>>12357976
We've had normal Twilight Princess threads before, you didn't have to make some weird bait over if it's retro or not

>>12358103
Is the Wii version retro?

>>12358140
The Wii version will never be retro. Retro is an era that changed twice but it won't change again

>>12358489
*sigh* for the 5,000th time unc, retro is time-based. Wii will be 20 years old later this year

The gamecube version is definitely retro since it has so much god damn dithering

>>12358494
Context matters

>>12358494
>I'll be 20 years old in several years

>>12358031
Majora's Mask essentially gives people too much anxiety to even try. They see the concept of the 3-day timer and they're immediately filtered and convinced it's too hardcore of a Zelda for them.

>>12358067
kek it's just arbitrary shit, same as non-decimel scores themselves.
>"alright on a scale of 1 to 10 how good do you feel this game is"
>uhh 8
"alright now on another scale of 0 to 9 how do you feel about the game again"
>uhh 8

>>12359534
You'd be right it decimal scores weren't in relation to each other, it's pretty easy to understand that a game with a rating of 3/10 is going to be much worse than a game rated 6/10.

>>12361394
thanks for puzzling that out for us

kino dungeons but holy shit I will never ever replay this game because it simply has too much filler and padding getting in the way of the player actually having fun.

>>12357976
why does your post sound so mad?

>>12362853
Because OP is literally mad. As in the original meaning of the word. Batshit crazy.

>>12357976
>I could only ever rent it as a kid, and my almost 20 year old save file is still there.
You really expect us to believe you tracked down and purchased the exact copy of the game you rented as a kid 20 years ago?

>>12358067
>>12359534
I think decimal scores are a natural response to the review score crunch that happens over time. You start with a scale of 1 to 10, but any functional game ends up with at least a 3 or 4, and the majority of games released have enough polish on top of that to earn at least a 5 or 6, so eventually 7 becomes the "low bar" for scoring and it's hard to justify rating any competently made game lower than that. The problem is that now you're essentially stuck with a 4-point scale of 7-10, and on top of that you have a large contingent of people who believe 10 should be considered "perfect" and therefore unattainable, which pushes you down to a 3-point scale of 7-9. With 95% of all games released to retail achieving scores of 7, 8, or 9, how do you use scores to compare an 8 to an 8 or a 9 to a 9? The easy answer is decimals. Adding in decimals brings your 3-point scale up to a 30-point scale so you can tell that an 8.8 game should be slightly better than an 8.5 game and scores can be more granular and easily compared without trying to convince people that "On a true 10-point scale, a 5/10 is actually decent!" or whatever.

>>12363090
>I'm pretending to be retarded

>>12362808
you're welcome

>>12364373
shut it