Did anyone ever read the NP review of FF6/3? How the heck could they give this game a 3.75 out of 5? Seriously, what the hell?
Printable View
Did anyone ever read the NP review of FF6/3? How the heck could they give this game a 3.75 out of 5? Seriously, what the hell?
Got a link or a scan?
Indeed. It's a little difficult to go back and try and read a review from 16 years ago now. Not that I recommend reading NP at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackmage_nuke
Out of 5 is a useless scoring system anyway - you can't seperate games (or whatever you're reviewing) easily enough.
Percentage scores are where it's at :cool:
Don't see the the review available on game rankings.com, but noticed that NP gave it the lowest score of the ones listed their. All the other reviewers rated it extremely high and it's sitting at a 93.68% and beating out the rest of the FF titles. Funny thing is the FFVI Adavnce is ranked a little lower.
Yeah, can't seem to find it online. Still, surprising that they gave it such a score. Should have deserved at least a 4.5. Interestingly, they named it the "RPG hit of the decade" and 3 years later, named it as the 8th best Nintendo game.
0.0-10.0 is 101 possible review scores and 0.00-5.00 is 501 possible review scores.
3.75 isn't low.
Thinking that's the equivalent to a 75%, so it would still be incredibly low compared to all the other reviews who ranked it 95% + earning it's 93.68.
for the caliber of a game that FF6 is...yes, it is low. plus, as Elskidor stated, most if not all of the rest of the reviews put it at least in the 90+% category.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vermachtnis
EDIT: Hmm...still haven't found the review itself, but this list has a piece on it. Apparently, they complained about stuffy dialogue.....okay?
http://hubpages.com/hub/Top-5-Worst-Videogame-Reviews
Found the review thanks to Retromags. It got docked for funny reasons. Apparently it got nailed for having a sappy story not written for an American audience (not sure if this is a complaint on the translation or something else...) and the animations are weak and and animation sequences (cutscenes) are too long. One part of the games coverage actually said VI was more of an interactive movie than a game. ;)
Here's the review:
Oddly enough, its has the highest average of all the games reviewed in the issue except for Super Punch Out! which looks to be the highest rated game that month.Quote:
It's the biggest RPG of all-time with so much story and variations of play that fans may become lost in the world for months at a time, so make sure to stock up chow before plugging in the game. The story mixes fantasy and technology like all Final Fantasy stories but much of the added punch comes from the greatly improved graphics and sound. Parties of up to four must foil the Empire---Not a particulary inventive plot--- but there are countless twists and turns along the way. Another major bonus for RPG fanatics are the many side trips that can be taken. Many of these sequences won't help you win the game directly, but they expand the play and the world to a whole new dimension. Due to the size of this monster Pak, Power is dedicating three in-depth reviews plus a Player's Guide available separately at your video game retailer for the best coverage anywhere.
+: A big game that will take at least 100 hours to complete. Battery backed-up memory with three slots. Lots to see and do.
-: Story is often sappy --- not written for an American audience. Animations are weak and animated sequences take too long.
Graphics and Sound: 3.9
Play Control: 3.1
Challenge: 3.9
Theme and Fun: 4.0
ah, thanks Wolf! didn't think there would be a chance of finding it anymore. as for the review...sappy dialogue? not made for an American audience? the script was full of emotional moments...but it never seemed over the top...i guess engaging moments weren't NP's cup of tea back in the day. animations are weak? animation sequences take too long? the spite animation was the best out of all the 2d final fantasies.
looks like they were trying to make a mountain out of a molehill in that review. oh well, at least they got their act together later.
It said 3 in depth reviews. I wonder if the others gave it better scores. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding that line
Was 75% the same back then as it was now? In our modern review system anything bellow 70% is stereotyped as not worth playing. Back then they could have used used the entire spectrum making it not seem nearly as bad as it does in modern context.Quote:
Oddly enough, its has the highest average of all the games reviewed in the issue except for Super Punch Out! which looks to be the highest rated game that month.
looooooooooooooooolQuote:
One part of the games coverage actually said VI was more of an interactive movie than a game.
If something doesn't get the score you want, it's always "too low/high" When PLAY Magazine reviewed Final Fantasy VII the hardcore fans of the game rated their score - 93% to be a low score, which it's not. (although even I would have marked it higher).Quote:
Originally Posted by Vermachtnis
If they think that about FFVI, don't let them play FFX - which was like an interactive movie...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno
It's a misunderstanding. The same issue has a semi-guide/overview of the game. Tells you about all the characters, gives away a bit of the plot, and discusses the characters special moves and stuff. This article was going to be extended for the next two issues so they can cover everything the game has. The actual scoring review was in the first issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyk
As for the score, two things I would like to point out. 1) This was the old days of gaming reviews, before scores got eschewed thanks to places like IGN and other gaming magazines. 3.0 are great scores cause it is common for games to get 1.0 and 2.0 point scores back in the day. We're before the time where getting a 7.0 in a 10 point scale or anything below a 4.0 in a 5 Star scale meant it was mediocre and crappy.
2) You also have to remember this was back in the day when RPGs were a very niche genre that appealed to a small group of gamers. Old reviews tend not to be as favorable to the RPG genre though FFVI, Secret of Mana, Chrono Trigger, Lufia 2, and finally Earthbound tended to change that trend with higher scores and larger fan bases, before VII came around and made the genre a household name to the masses. So it's not surprising the review does not speak very favorably to the game cause we're at the early points of the turn in the market for the genre.
NP was also a little different than some of the others when SNES Final Fantasy4/2 came out. While some of the other reviews gave FF4 a slightly lower rank than they did FF6, NP gave FF4 a 4.275 out of 5.