Your analogy is flawed because the products have different target platforms. For example, Red Steel doesn't compete with Gears of War for graphics any more than FFXII competes with FEAR (both got very high graphics ratings), the reason being that you can't stick GOW in your Wii and play it. A game review should review the game, not the platform. Let's make a similar comparison with cars, our favorite anlogy to game consoles.
By your standard, every single tire manufacturer should get bottom-barrel ratings for their truck tires for the reason that no matter how top-line your F250's tires are, it won't corner as well as a Corvette Z06. But obviously, it would be completely unhelpful to the truck owner if every consumer magazine rates all truck tires with a D- for traction.
By my standard, a truck tire would be rated poorly, in say, road noise, if manufacture A decided to focus their efforts on mud/snow traction while manufacture B focused more on road noise (the trucks wouldn't come into play, in this case). I'm talking apples to apples comparisons here (well, at least that's what I'm trying to do, but not conveying that very well). 3 new consoles, they each want my money for the same thing, the next iteration of video game based entertainment. They each accomplish this in different ways. My (attempted) analogy is looking at the choices the manufacture made and how that reflects on the software. Comparatively speaking, when it comes to the competition, the graphics for Wii games will be worse. Specifically for multiplatform games, it should absolutely be marked down for having worse graphics. Whose fault is it? It doesn't matter, as a consumer I don't care. I want to know which version has the best graphics, which has the best audio, controls, fun factor, etc etc. I think that's a pretty fair apples to apples comparison. I would no more let Nintendo off the hook for weaker hardware then I would let Sony get away with saying "ummm, ok guys. We're not going for the next generation of online experience. We're going for a
new generation of online service. Therefore if all games don't have standardized friends list like they do on Live, don't get mad at us or the developers. So, you can't mark the game down for having a worse online experience (as compared to the competitions offerings), because that wasn't 'our goal' with the system."
However, in the cases where we aren't talking multiplatform, direct comparisons, I now see why the graphics shouldn't be graded so harshly. As I stated in my previous post, it would be unfair to mark Mario Galaxy down on graphics, simply because the next Ratchet and Clank looks better. Unless, of course, we decided to compare the two consoles based on their platform games. But, that doesn’t really pertain to reviews (and I think that's where I was getting myself mixed up).
For game reviews, yes. Resistance doesn't have rumble, and it shouldn't be docked for that, because it has nothing to do with Insomniac. You are confusing hardware comparisons with game reviews. And why not extend it across all platforms? Why not give every PS2 game a 3.0 for graphics, since they look like junk compared to the latest PC and X360 titles? Why not score every DS and GBA game with a 1.0? Why not give every console FPS a 5.0 for gameplay, since K&M on PC is a thousand times better? The answer is that games are almost always judged relative to their platform.
The PS2 isn't competing with the newest PCs or the 360. The PS2 isn't one of the new consoles coming out competing for the home entertainment dollar. Where it competes is with the XBox and Gamecube. And the PC doesn't directly compete with anything, its in its own market (in my opinion, at least). I understand your point, and now agree to certain extent that games should be judged relative to their platform. I amend my previous statements. I think I also confused general comparisons of platform A software vs platform B software with how game is reviewed.
However, if we're looking at 3 different versions of the same game, the hardware factor should definitely come into play. In such cases, it doesn't matter what the hardware can or can't do. What matters is which version performs best in which areas? Nintendo decided not to focus on hardware. That will be reflected in certain parts of a multiplatform game. MS decided to focus heavily on online functionality/infrastructure, which will be reflected in certain aspects of the game as well. Lets look at Tony Hawk on the PS3 and 360. Should the PS3 version not be knocked down because of lack of rumble? Lack of online support? Both are elements that reflect Sony and Microsoft’s respective decisions.
Although, on 2nd thought, reviewing a multiplatform game and comparing them are two different things. In the case of a review, I suppose it wouldn't make sense to mark the Wii version lower than the PS360 version, unless we're doing a direct comparison between them. But as a consumer, specifically a multiplatform consumer, I still want to get an idea of which does what best. Hmmm, that complicates things.
If you only own a Wii, 360 or PS3 what more useful? Games scores relative to your console's game library or scores relative to all platforms.
Yes, this is the element I was missing in my logic (or ignoring). I was speaking entirely from a multi-platform user perspective (without realizing it), which does make that a limited application.
