That Zelda: Breath of the Wild is a good game that can hardly be denied. So good that everyone needs to know for themselves. If you are hesitant about buying, you can rely on the critics of the big editorial offices to learn more about a game in detail. Even if the current offshoot of the Metascore is over 96, it does not mean that everyone has the same opinion. This is how the free editor Jim Sterling, who published a review on Breath of the Wild on his page thejimquisition.com. This review is not as positive as the others, but has a good reason for this. And yet, a huge part of the fan base of Zelda is personally attacked, so much so that Jim not only had to take on insane insults and murders. Pretty much vortex for a game that can quietly tolerate a few more critical and less positive opinions. Breath of the Wild has now fallen to a 96-year-old metascore (before 97), despite the fact that Jim's rating in the current ranking is not even considered. Nevertheless, he is accused of the fact that the review must come from an angry ex-employee rather than from Jim himself. "Or whatever Nintendo has done to you".
Irrelevant whether one criticizes a book, film, concert, show or even a game, no one in the world can share the same opinion, the same taste or perception as another. Everyone feels and experiences events, deeds and stimuli somewhat differently. If this were not so, there would be nothing to differentiate, everyone would believe the same, think, see, want, feel ... if one could speak of a feeling at all. Opinions and contradictions are more important in our society than ever before. And it is not only refreshing, but also very important and courageous to take a different standpoint, especially in the case of a game that receives so much, almost exclusively positive feedback from the press. The critics are primarily concerned with showing the various aspects of a game to the prospective customer, in order to offer him a wide range of pros and cons, which allows him to create his own image before he buys the game himself. And yet it can happen that this player gets a totally different perception from the game, than from the reviews he has read.
It is, of course, important in the case of criticism, as in the case of comments and especially in the case of articles, to make false statements, to distort them, or even to falsify something altogether. It is also important to note that a criticism is not meant to "expose" someone or something, but, in the case of a good criticism, also make judgments that help to improve oneself or something. Thus a negative critique, as paradoxical as it may sound, is almost always meant to be positive. Finally, as a critic, one should also be able to draw conclusions about what I can do better next time.
And that's exactly what some fans of Zelda seem to ignore. And here we are not talking about a handful, but of an incomprehensibly large crowd, "going" on Jim Sterling. As soon as something does not fit into your opinion, it is wrong, deprecating, offensive, unnecessary, irrelevant. This problem comes not only with reviews, but also in the real world. Politics, economy, the general life, at work and even among friends.
And yet I must say that I have never experienced it to this extent in a game critique. Therefore, to all who should read this and perhaps also think that such a criticism "is not important and should have been better saved,"
please consider that different opinions are not only important but also beneficial in our world. This also applies to games. Apart from that, you can never do it correctly. Neither the developer the players nor the critics his readers. But if something does not fit you, keep your own criticism constructive. Only in this way can something be changed.
What do you think? How is your opinion about the current happenings about the worse criticism about Zelda: Breath of the Wild? Let me know!