Topic: Wii review scoring systems unfair?

I for one don't judge my game purchases, or the quality of games, on reviews BUT many gamers out there do. The thing that concerns me is that Wii games (regardless of how good they are) seem to be really harshly reviewed (marked down for minor flaws that would be passed on other systems). This reinforces the misconception that instead of the selection of 9/10 scoring titles the Wii actually has, its instead a "kiddie" console having only 7/8/9 scoring games available. This may not seem too bad for those of us who actually know how good the selection of games is BUT like I said earlier many rely on word of mouth, IGN and metacritic to decide their game purchases AND low scores on these means that many gamers (both core and casual) overlook excellent Wii titles and spread untruth that the Wii has no games. This in turn means many 3rd party and some 1st party titles aren't as profitable as they should be and in the worst case scenario less are made and we all suffer.

Titles that should have scored higher:

-PunchOut!! (One of the best titles this generation)
-Dead Space Extraction (should not have been marked down just because of its genre)
-Fifa 10 (Should have been scored as a stand alone title not a continuation of the FIFA series)

these are just a few off the top of my head.

Rant over, discuss

What angers me is that reviewers often take off points just because the game trys something new, even if this new thing actually works. (insert game here)

Totally agree and with this type of mentality, publishers will be scared to try anything new instead rehashing successful franchises. This is one reason I love Wiiware as indie publishers are really coming up with some great new ideas. Another thing which angers me is games losing points for being too short, 6-8hrs for a great gaming experience is fine by me but it seems (and I may be wrong here) that reviewers use this opportunity to knock points of Wii titles. I would much prefer a short well made game than a game that is long for no apparent reason. I think youtube and walkthroughs are also to blame for this as many gamers (I admit to doing this a few times) just look towards a walkthrough as soon as they get stuck. If you did everything in a game yourself these 6-8hr games would take much longer.

Imo in game reviews the cost should always be considered into the rating.

30EUR games like Endless Ocean or Big Brain Academy shouldn't be rated in the same league as 50EUR games (New Super Mario Bros. Wii) or 60EUR games (Twilight Princess). WiiWare and VC games the same. You can only compare 500pts games to other 500pts games, you know what I mean? There's no point in saying this 500pts is worse than this 1500pts game. There are differences in cost for a reason.

• Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn
  The graphics are good and better than the Gamecube version. Ya'll blind?
  And in general, games shouldn't be downgraded just because they have no Wii controls.
• Mario Party 8
  IGN's totally wrong there. This is the best Mario Party game (best variety of minigames and boards), even though over the past decade the series lost steam and should be re-designed to bring in some fresh air. Make it a Nintendo Party with Link, Samus etc.!

definitely think cost should be a factor gud suggestion

Well, you mention both Metacritic and IGN.

For Punchout, Metacritic has the title listed at 86% and IGN gave it an 8.8
DS:E recieved an 82% from Metacritic and a 8.5 from IGN
FIFA 10 recieved a 76% from Metacritic and a 7.7 from IGN

All of those scores (any many casual gamers just check the score, not the review) seem pretty accurate to me.

I'm not disagreeing that they aren't good scores, but Punchout!! is definitely a 9+, Dead Space: Extraction is one of the BEST on rail shooters ever made (thus 9+) and FIFA 10 is probably the best non-sim, non-mario football game on the Wii (thus 8+). What I'm talking about is reviewers looking at what the games have achieved in its genre, also I think the point system eg. 8.6 should just be rounded. Even though it shouldn't make any different an 8.6 game seems inferior to an 9 game even though they are practically the same. Those points make a difference to those that care about review scores. Apologies if that made little sense, lol

Lumping IGN and MetaCritic together is wrong. IGN reviews games. Metacritic compiles all the reviews from the major reviewing sites (hence the name Meta Critic) together for ease of use for the potential buyer.

As the Metacritic website says: Metacritic compiles reviews from respected critics and publications for movies, DVDs, music, television and games.

It seems to me that some games are marked down because they're not on 360 or PS3

I know what Metacritic is, was just mentioning places people go to see if games are good or not. Just the same as I'm not lumping IGN and word of mouth, as that wouldn't make any sense.

I'm more apt to give stock in a Metacritic rating than I am solely an IGN rating. If I go to Metacritic and 10 to 15 sites all panned a game, I'm not going to buy it. If it receives a poor review on IGN, but decent ones on another, I'll probably go with it. Hell, if word of mouth clearly indicates something is shovelware, I'd listen to that over IGN too.

I don't know what the use in complaining about a review scoring system is anyways to be honest. When you read a review, you're getting the opinion of a single person. I doubt a single bad review can impact the bottom line of a company, so I doubt we're getting short shrift when a title only gets an 8/10 rather than a 9/10.

I wholeheartedly agree. Finally, another believer!
(It was probably marked down for being a remake with little in the way of new content, I presume.)

Y'know, I'm pretty sure I've seen this kinda thread about 2,000 times already. Let me answer this thread like most people on this site would;

Reviews:

#1. Do your research first.
#2. Reviews are opinions. Opinions vary from person to person.
#3. Metacritic just gathers review scores and averages them.

The Games Not Selling:

#1. The advertising for most games are non-existent.
#2. Some people actually use their money for necessary things such as foor, water, and air.
#3. Most people who have Wiis don't know who Megaman is.

I don't get it how people complain about the difference between a 7, 8 and 9 our of 10. They really aren't that much different to me. To me 7 says "this is pretty good" and 9 says "this is very good" while 10 says "why are you still reading this?". I have never gained interest in a game only to ignore it because metacritic gave it a 7/10.

Yeah you probably have, but I'm not trying to accomplish anything new, its just a rant (as said in the original post) I doubt it will accomplish anything, but its encouraging for me to see people having an adult discussion and sharing similar feelings on a subject which irks me a little.

Hellz yeah! Love me some Punchout!! Its one of my main reasons for owning a Wii (anything that came before or afterwards was/is just icing on the cake lol) I love it because its reminds me exactly why I love Nintendo, great graphics, fun simple gameplay, an awesome sense of humour, and can be "pick up and play" or really deep if you want it to be! A true masterpiece IMO! Great to see a likeminded gamer!

Me neither but there are many people that do and sadly their opinions and purchases affect us in a round about way.

Many people? Has there been a marketing study looking at review sites and their impact on game purchases?

Review scores for the most part are pretty pointless, even when comparing between different sites as they all tend to use different rubrics. Also, the definitions of the scores are open to interpretation by the reviewer. Two reviewers could say virtually the same thing about a game but give it different final scores because they interpret the rubric differently. The best way to find out if a game is worth the money is to read the text of the review.

Nope, but I frequent enough forums and blogs (I heard "if its less than a 8, no buy" way to many times), visit enough game stores and discuss titles and video games in general with my pupils (I work in a school) to realise that they do influence SOME gamers, and its only logical that if gamers think a game is poor quality they are less likely to buy it.