Topic: Wii review scoring systems unfair?

Totally agree with you there. Some people seem to have the wrong idea about this thread thinking that were just complaining about low review scores and being fanboys. But the main point we are trying to make is, like you said, that reviewers should review Wii titles as Wii titles thus giving a more accurate view of library of games the Wii has.

No.

Those consoles "died" in favour of better processing power. Sure, that allows better graphics but I'd say the primary reason for consoles to evolve was the need to have larger games with the possibility to have more stuff happening in the screen at the same time. Those things allowed game developers to create interactive experiences without having too much to think about what situations they can and can't do because of the lack of power.

Ok, I think the new HD-consoles in this generation are more about graphics than the past consoles. I mean, that's the point of the whole SD->HD thing; to have clearer and sharper image. And to have that quality of an image they have to upgrade the power of the new consoles. Nintendo didn't think they needed that much more processing power as the main point was to change gameplay. HD quality on the other hand requires much better power so that's why PS3 and XO have a lot more power than the Wii.

SNES and Genesis/MegaDrive games were surely better looking than NES and Master System games but the main thing those machines made possible was the possibility to have larger games with tons of more stuff to happen on screen and tons of more things for the player to do and to interact with.
PlayStation and N64 made completely new kind of games possible. The power of those consoles allowed the developers to create working 3D surroundings. PlayStation was still a bit clunky with that kind of stuff but N64 got rid of most of those problems. N64 still wasn't powerful enough to have games with enough stuff to show and to do so Xbox, PS2 and GC came to make it possible. At this point the consoles were powerful enough to run games complex and large enough so the next step for the developers to do with new consoles so that people see a real difference was to either cling to the whole HD-thing that was happening with movies or to come up with something completely new that alters the gameplay itself. Sony and Microsoft went with HD and Nintendo figured out something else.

This thread really does sound like a rant, in my opinion.

It was stated that it was a rant in the original post, not a disruptive rant mind you, just one that would promote discussion. E.g. the words "rant over. discuss" in the original post.

Edit: I'm intrigued as to what makes it "ranty" though

I see.

Carry on then!

Airola, the consoles went into a war to see which one was able to have better looking games (yeah, graphics), which is what sells in the past and which is what sells today (Nintendo even tried to put advanced graphic chips inside their SNES cardriges). We can argue forever here, but what attracts to 99% of the consumers to buy a new game (not considering reviews, etc) is how nice it looks like, graphically. And I think it will be still true in the following 10 years. These comments like graphics doesnt count, or just average graphics are enough are just a futile fanboy ways to defend the lack of power of Wii. What would you prefer, Zelda TP with NGC graphics, or Zelda TP with PS3 quality graphics? Now tell me that you dont care ...

I agree with you on the HD Zelda point (thinking about that makes me drool,lol) and I think graphics do count, but art direction counts more, this is why even though it was on the PS2 Shadow of the Colossus stands head and shoulders above most of the games available today. Also some games are beautiful enough as they are e.g. would Lost Winds, Punchout, NSMBW really benefit by being HD? I think the draw of PS360 power wise would be larger more immersive games not just ultra-detailed graphics.

Au contraire, the premise of this thread is that typical reviewers don't give the games you like scores that you agree with, then you proceed to place the blame squarely on the reviewers.

"These reviewers are making the Wii, look like it lacks good games D:, they must be doing it on purpose, they must bear a grudge of reason unknown, but my guess is graphics has a lot to do with it..."

You didn't actually go mention graphics in your opener, so I'll admit it's a step or two above the typical fanboy rant.
Although like your typical fanboy rant, it didn't really have any supporting points.

I really don't get this quote, you've really ran with what I originally posted haven't you lol. In my original post I never said that reviewers were Wii biased or that they had a grudge against the Wii. All I said was that some reviews were unduly harsh against Wii titles, some on this thread raised the interesting point that this is probably because they are reviewing games against the same standard as the HD consoles which is kind of unfair. Also I didn't start this post because my fave titles got poor reviews, notice that I mentioned Dead Space: Extraction in my original post, this is a title I have no interest in BUT I feel that if a game is good then it shouldn't be scored less just because its on the Wii. I doubt what I say will reach you as you're already convinced I'm a rabid fanboy but I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

I really don't get this quote, you've really ran with what I originally posted haven't you lol. In my original post I never said that reviewers were Wii biased or that they had a grudge against the Wii. All I said was that some reviews were unduly harsh against Wii titles, some on this thread raised the interesting point that this is probably because they are reviewing games against the same standard as the HD consoles which is kind of unfair.

Being biased to the Wii, and unduly harsh are pretty much the same.
Aside from graphics, there's not much that shouldn't be held to the same standard as HD consoles. (Although were a Wii and PS3/360 game to be the exact same, except the HD consoles had better graphics, the HD one would be slightly better)

Also I didn't start this post because my fave titles got poor reviews, notice that I mentioned Dead Space: Extraction in my original post, this is a title I have no interest in BUT I feel that if a game is good then it shouldn't be scored less just because its on the Wii

So a large part of your argument is based on a game that you haven't played, and have no interest in playing, but regardless you feel that it's underrated. Makes no sense.

I doubt what I say will reach you as you're already convinced I'm a rabid fanboy but I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

I don't think you're rabid. I can't see where you're coming from though, arguing about games that I've not played is something I tend not to do.

Realistically with the Wii review scores don't matter as much, as the dedicated gamers, are outnumbered by non-gamers with Wiis. The target audience for the games you have listed is a minority, bumping up review scores on the Wii by 5% or so would have little impact, a few more in the target audience would get it, the majority would still be ignorant of its existance.

Nice rebuttal, can't really argue with most of your points. A few minor points though. Firstly I didn't have to play the games I was concerned about as I was more concerned about reviews I've read where Wii titles have been marked down even though the review reads to be very positive (see IGN's recent Silent Hill Wii review, marked down due to length despite everything else seeming to be fine). Also being biased implies reviewers are doing it on purpose but I feel their harshness is due to their way of thinking (all games should be reviewed equally regardless of what console their on or the limitations of the console, budget available to developers etc) not a grudge against Wii. You do make some excellent points though, really made me think

I think it should be pointed out, in reference to Airola's comment, that the PS3 and 360 are very much taking advantage of their higher power to do more than simply be in HD. The draw distances are much, MUCH better than anything the PS2 could pull off (something I noticed all-too-much while playing Shadow of the Collossus after having played the likes of Batman: Arkham Asylum, which contains some amazing opportunies to see clearly miles into the distance). In a related note, the number of objects that can be on screen at once has greatly increased (compare the original Katamari Damacy to the more recent 360 and PS3 versions...it's hard to go back 'cause the levels feel kind of empty). I really don't think that simple visual power is being touted any more than ever before...it's just that this is the first generation where we've ever had THIS huge a gap in processing power between consoles.

To be continued (dang PS3 browser...)

In regard to Digiki's claim that higher review scores for Wii games wouldn't increase sales: I would have to disagree. Sadly, GameInformer has a profound impact on many GameStop customers who are pretty new to gaming and don't really have another source of gaming news. That 5.5 for Mario Super Sluggers would be taken as totally definitive by some who would otherwise have been interested!

Meanwhile, low review scores for "core" games make many "core" gamers steer clear of the Wii, thinking it has no games good enough to stray from their HD consoles (the ones who don't automatically snub it for NOT being HD, or for the motion controls).

There are a lot of factors here, and to dismiss low review scores for Wii games that are every bit as good as (if not better than) games on other consoles in the same publication as unimportant is pure folly.

Punch Out one of the best titles of this generation? Overselling it much?
It's good and all, but not THAT good.

@The Fox: They're entitled to their opinion, y'know. I agree that it ranks quite high...maybe not QUITE as high as they say, but quite high indeed. I do not begrudge them their stance on the issue, nor do I see why you do.

@Stuff
Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, be it the quality of a game, disagreement with such or even residual anger over a magazine giving a game a 5.5.

Well, I wasn't interested in graphical advances even in my C64 days so maybe I just see things in a different way and maybe that makes me unable to understand the meaning of graphics. Maybe that's the reason I haven't seen new consoles as graphically advanced machines. Surely they've been that too but I've always thought that's more like a side product of them.

SNES did have that Mode 7 technology and later Super FX chips on some of the games. While they certainly were sometimes used just to make flashy graphical effects to the games I mostly saw them supporting gameplay. I do remember how people were amazed by graphics though. I remember how Donkey Kong Country got a perfect score in a video game magazine but a year or so later the staff admitted that they were so amazed by the graphics and sounds that they overreacted to it and that the score should've been lower. They even gave 100/100 points to challenge but admitted that especially that score should've been much lower. (Hey! Something closer to the topic for a while! )

I'd say that from a developer's point of view it used to be more about what they can make players to do but from a marketing point of view graphics were more important.

What comes to Zelda TP, I haven't even played the GC or Wii version of it yet. I don't know if I ever play it. I prefer 2D Zeldas over 3D. It took me time to even understand Ocarina of Time. I couldn't really stand it at first but just a few years ago I tried to play it again and after getting further in the game I started to really like it. I honestly don't know which Zelda I would play, the SD or HD version. Maybe I would play whichever I'd have in my hands. Well, if I had both games and they both had the exact same controls but the only difference would be the graphics I might play the HD one. But then again just being HD doesn't yet mean the graphics would be visually more appealing than in the SD version. I mean that the SD version could have different and more appealing art style. Like for example I like the graphics in the NES versions of SMB1-3 more than the All Stars versions. That simpler style is more pleasing to my eye to watch.

I'm not saying I've never been amazed by visuals in games. I remember how I was stunned by the hypnotic 3Dish effects in some of the animation sequences in NES game Kickle Cubicle. Also I found it stunning how good character movements they did on the videos in FFVIII. That in fact was the last time I ever was really amazed by any game graphics.

@Airola: I believe we're assuming that the art style would be the same, and the only difference would be whether it was in full HD glory or not. Basically, discount the motion controls of Modern Warfare Reflex (or whatever the title was...R-something)...would you rather play it on Wii or PS360? Probably the latter.

I can appreciate your unusual view of gameplay before graphics to such a strong degree, but that definitely isn't how the industry seems to work, and it not how a lot of "core" gamers view things, sadly. So we're pretty much stuck with the status quo.

@The Fox: Touché.

They'd increase sales but not substantially, the games mentioned in the opening post all scored fairly well, a buff of about 5% would probably stop the majority of people from saying they were underrated, however that's really not that much in the grand scheme of things, and sales likely wouldn't increase all that substantially. A huge percentage of the fanbase is blissfully unaware of such things, to get them to buy said game advertising would do much more than review scores would.

I don't like to play FPS games at all. I lost interest to them after Duke Nukem 3D and even then those games weren't that enjoyable (I used to play Duke Nukem 3D by having a map on the screen and imagining I'm playing a 2D top-down perspective adventure game )

So basically if I'd ever play Modern Warfare that would be with the Wii because of the controls. I've got Call of Duty 3 on Wii as I wanted to try if those games could be any good with a different type of controls. It was certainly more fun than playing a similar game with an ordinary gamepad or with a mouse+keyboard combination but I still wasn't sold for FPS games. (However Jumping Flash for PlayStation was fun. I guess it was the way the jumping was done.) If I had to take away the motion controls I probably wouldn't be playing it at all.

If there was a situation where I'd have both the Wii and XO/PS3 in front of me and I'd have the same game for both systems AND the Wii version wouldn't have any kind of motion controls and if I'd be forced to choose which version to play, then I'd might choose the XO/PS3 version.

So, if there was the same game with HD graphics but without the motion controls and with SD graphics but with the motion controls I'd choose the version with motion controls. And if there was the same game with HD graphics but without the motion controls and with SD graphics but without the motion controls I'd choose the HD version. But then again, if the Wii didn't have motion controls but it would've had HD graphics I think I wouldn't have bought any console of this generation. I haven't been really interested in new consoles since the first PlayStation. I played some games with my friend's and cousin's new consoles but I never felt any kind of a need to buy one to myself. I just played with my old NES, Commodore64 and PlayStation. They were enough for me. Fast forward to 2006/2007......... I tried Wii Sports with a friend of mine and absolutely loved playing it. I loved it so much I felt the need to buy the machine. I've tried some PS3 games but nothing has really made me consider buying it (although Trials seems to be quite a fun game). It was the same with PS2, Xbox and GameCube too. I surely loved the Resident Evil remake on GC but still I didn't have the same urge to buy the machine as I had with the Wii and Wii Sports.

So, it's just all about having fun with the game. Be it SD or HD, if the game is fun to play then it's good. I understand some (if not most) people think good HD graphics make games more fun. They can think that way. It's fine with me. I just don't think the same way and I hope it's fine with them too. Let us all enjoy gaming even if the reason to like games was just to see good graphics, hear good music, have good controls or playing a minigame collection in casual parties.