Wii Review Scores--A Little Skewed?
- Thread starter fearsomepirate
- Start date
And how, as a reviewer of a newly launched console, would you even be able to grasp what the system is "capable of"?
Furthermore, just because a game, let's say, used all of the system's capabilities (bloom, normal maps, self shadowing, etc.) to the maximum capability of the system, it should get a 10? What if the art style wasn't cohesive? What if it was a mish-mash of discordant concepts turned into virtual retch-fest? Surely that game shouldn't warrant a 10 even if the console was "maxxed out".
In other words, trying to limit how a game is graded solely by the capabilities of that particular console is nonsense. You simply can't apply logic stringently to a process that is, at its heart, ever so subjective.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
How about this.. It has been said that comparisons across platforms are not a fair way to judge, yet comparisons across platforms that are ports, is acceptable.
Using that logic, we compare CoD on the Wii to CoD on the 360. Graphically, the 360 version merits an 8 and the Wii version merits a 5.
Now we come to reviewing Red Steel, which is a Wii exclusive. We now apply 'console specific' criteria to review the graphics in Red Steel and compare it to another FPS on the Wii, namely CoD.
Red Steel is graphically superior to CoD on the Wii, and so Red Steel earns the score of an 8.
Is it not obvious how incredibly confusing it would be to the consumer to have Red Steel on the Wii and CoD on the 360 both with scores of 8? Would that not imply that the two games are graphic equals?
The reality is that cross-platform comparisons will happen, because they have to. You can't give an inferior version of CoD on the Wii a score of 9 "Because it looks good for what the Wii is capable of" and a graphically superior version of CoD on the 360 a score of 8 "because it doesn't look as good as Rainbow Six: LV."
You'd have to judge the graphical prowess of the Wii version to the 360 version. And once you do that for any game you automatically invite (rather.. you force) comparisons in similar games of the same genre, even if they aren't the identical game.
Using that logic, we compare CoD on the Wii to CoD on the 360. Graphically, the 360 version merits an 8 and the Wii version merits a 5.
Now we come to reviewing Red Steel, which is a Wii exclusive. We now apply 'console specific' criteria to review the graphics in Red Steel and compare it to another FPS on the Wii, namely CoD.
Red Steel is graphically superior to CoD on the Wii, and so Red Steel earns the score of an 8.
Is it not obvious how incredibly confusing it would be to the consumer to have Red Steel on the Wii and CoD on the 360 both with scores of 8? Would that not imply that the two games are graphic equals?
The reality is that cross-platform comparisons will happen, because they have to. You can't give an inferior version of CoD on the Wii a score of 9 "Because it looks good for what the Wii is capable of" and a graphically superior version of CoD on the 360 a score of 8 "because it doesn't look as good as Rainbow Six: LV."
You'd have to judge the graphical prowess of the Wii version to the 360 version. And once you do that for any game you automatically invite (rather.. you force) comparisons in similar games of the same genre, even if they aren't the identical game.
Yes, reviews, if you read there official methodology, will always claim to compare graphics ONLY TO OTHER GAMES ON THAT SAME PLATFORM. This sounds good in theory, but I've always thought how untrue a claim it was in practice. For example, in the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube era, of course all three platforms games were compared to each other somewhat in light of graphics. Videogaming does not happen in a vacuum. So, I suppose it's a bit of a mix, both what compared against the games on that platform, and against games on other platforms, no matter what they say. It is just like, Xbo360 vs PS3 games, do you think that graphics scores for a game on say, PS3 are NOT going to be influenced somewhat by what's out there on 360, or vice versa? Of course they are, all the games on all the platforms are a context.
Now, in the case of the Wii reviews here, I bet what they are doing is saying hey, here's a 2X Gamecube with 64MB of extra RAM, we should not be seeing Gamecube qaulity graphics (though the reason I'm sure is the early games). Hence the low graphics scores reasoning. Btw, it just shows Wii games are not exclusively judged against other Wii games. That cant even work if it's the first game on the system! I'd bet say, Zelda, will score at least an 8 or 9 in graphics though, which if was compared against PS3/360 games it would not deserve that. So again, it's a mix, of comparing against the platform, and the context of games on other systems as well.
________
HOW TO ROLL BLUNTS
Last edited by a moderator:
Let me be as blunt as I can...
If consoles were scored in comparison to other consoles, it would not be technically possible for a DS or PSP game to score a 10 in every category.
Which would break the scoring system.
The fact of the matter is that games are scored, and reviewed, according to what their respective consoles can do. Mario Kart DS looks like shit next to Gears of War, but MKDS should still be a 9 or 10 in graphics because it's near the best you can do on the DS at 60fps. GoW is a 9 or 10 on X360 because it's nearly the peak of what the X360 can do.
A 10/10 on the NES isn't going to stack up against a 10/10 game on Wii, in the long run. Simple logic.
If consoles were scored in comparison to other consoles, it would not be technically possible for a DS or PSP game to score a 10 in every category.
Which would break the scoring system.
The fact of the matter is that games are scored, and reviewed, according to what their respective consoles can do. Mario Kart DS looks like shit next to Gears of War, but MKDS should still be a 9 or 10 in graphics because it's near the best you can do on the DS at 60fps. GoW is a 9 or 10 on X360 because it's nearly the peak of what the X360 can do.
A 10/10 on the NES isn't going to stack up against a 10/10 game on Wii, in the long run. Simple logic.
Let me be as blunt as I can...
The final score does not have to be an average of the sub-categories. Why does it make sense for us to review games on a console like Wii as if x360 and PS3 don't exist? If Wii's controls are touted as a selling point against the 360 and PS3, then its subpar graphics need to be counted as a detractor. Is this a case of, "but everyone's beautiful in their own special way"?
And IMO (just mho) Nintendo is ripping us off here, even at $250. Its a good move as a corporation if the system sells, but I'm not going to buy a Wii wholly because I want immersive games, and graphics are a very necessary part of that package to me. What Nintendo is doing in my eyes is spinning their lack of R&D into a strength (aka a smart, but standard corporate move). Their stance that they choose gameplay over graphics is pretty silly; why are the two mutually exclusive? And the concept of the remote seems a little silly to me. I'm too old to be hiding behind a couch and shooting at the tv (has anyone seen the Wii COD3 commercial?).
Last edited by a moderator:
crazygambit
Regular
This is irrelevant. The exact same game would get a different graphics score on the same machine if it were released at different dates. For example a lot of the Special Editions usually get lower marks in graphics even though they're exactly the same as the original game, just because they're released later. An example that comes to mind is DMC3 on gamespot which has a 9, but the SE only has an 8. Basically a 10 in graphics today for the Wii may only be about an 8 a year from now, and a 6 5 years from now as the bar gets raised.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
You fail to understand what nintendo wants to do.
Its easy, if nintendo would make a high tech 500 dollar console they wouldnt sell anything. People would be buying x360 and ps3 because of the crossplatform games and the cooler image. So nintendo decided to try and offer something that x360 and ps3 cant thus creating their own market (to some extend). They decidec screw gfx. Wii is powerfull enough not be to very limited in what you can do (big worlds, decent gfx etc). Sure, x360 and ps3 can do better but wii gfx will do for most people (if people cared about the gfx that much everybody would be playing on PC instead of ps2). And they introduced to wiimote to try and give people a totally new experiance in playing games instead of playing the same games they've already played since psx/n64 only with better gfx (because basically that is all ps3 and x360 are offering, the sames games, only better looking) and by keeping the costs down they try to appeal to not only gamers but also people who otherwise might have never played a game. THe wiimote is also a part of that.
You might not like it, but from nintendos point of view the whole idea behind the Wii makes total sense.
And wii comercials only have people swinging and aiming like a moron to let people see the motion sensing in the wiimote, you can also play games with minimal movement.
Its easy, if nintendo would make a high tech 500 dollar console they wouldnt sell anything. People would be buying x360 and ps3 because of the crossplatform games and the cooler image. So nintendo decided to try and offer something that x360 and ps3 cant thus creating their own market (to some extend). They decidec screw gfx. Wii is powerfull enough not be to very limited in what you can do (big worlds, decent gfx etc). Sure, x360 and ps3 can do better but wii gfx will do for most people (if people cared about the gfx that much everybody would be playing on PC instead of ps2). And they introduced to wiimote to try and give people a totally new experiance in playing games instead of playing the same games they've already played since psx/n64 only with better gfx (because basically that is all ps3 and x360 are offering, the sames games, only better looking) and by keeping the costs down they try to appeal to not only gamers but also people who otherwise might have never played a game. THe wiimote is also a part of that.
You might not like it, but from nintendos point of view the whole idea behind the Wii makes total sense.
And wii comercials only have people swinging and aiming like a moron to let people see the motion sensing in the wiimote, you can also play games with minimal movement.
crazygambit
Regular
I understand very well what they are trying to do. The thing is some people feel that being innovative doesn't imply that you need to sacrifice so much graphical performance. Other very valid point is that for a $250 machine the graphics displayed just aren't up to snuff. Especially if you consider Wii like controls may not be exclusive to the Nintendo machine with something like this http://ps3.qj.net/Fusion-The-cross-platform-motion-sensor/pg/49/aid/70013
which I haven't seen discussed on these boards before, but I fear is going way off topic. Maybe it should have it's own thread? I definetely see some potential there.
which I haven't seen discussed on these boards before, but I fear is going way off topic. Maybe it should have it's own thread? I definetely see some potential there.
Bovine Excrements. A certain prominent lagomorph-infested game for the Wii was initially designed as a huge continuous world filled with minigames here and there. Now it's just a bunch of minigames in separate levels. Your guess as of to why.
Last edited by a moderator:
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Yes the price is too high. But nintendo did that because they wanted to make profit from day one and after that raised the price again because retailers were afraid that they whouldnt make enough money on the console. I also wouldve loved to see a faster machine (something that can produce hl2 gfx) but I also understand what nintendo is trying to do.
You mean rayman? well even gta had big worlds on ps2 and just look at zelda TP on GC wich has hughe worlds with ''good'' gfx.
I think the opposite is happening.Reviewers are way too generous with the wii games and way harder on the ps3 launch titles.
I'm confused. I thought the reviews on sites like IGN and Gamespot were for games. What are these console reviews are we talking about? Anyone got a link?
Aha, funny. There's a marked difference between being blunt and being asinine. Allow me to explain.
I agree. Sometimes a game is greater than the sum of its parts.
By "a console" you're referring to "Wii games", am I right? Games are what I'm arguing about, not the hardware. The hardware (disregarding the remote) is cheap and thus weak in comparison to X360/PS3.
To answer your question, games are reviewed by journalists (and journalistically-inclined gamers) to help other gamers decide what games to buy. When a gamer owns only a PS3, for example, he/she is reading PS3 reviews to gauge how good a game title is. Why? It costs $60 a game, and nobody wants a dud. (i.e. NBA 07)
The gamer doesn't need to know how it stacks up against X360 and Wii games, because frankly they don't own those systems. They offer different experiences (subtlely, in the case of X360) and have different capabilities, so it makes sense to rate the games based on what their platform can do. Since the PS3 is inherently better in terms of graphical horsepower than the Wii, a 10 for graphics on the PS3 is not comparable to a 10 on the Wii.
Ask any major gaming journalist and they'll tell you that they rate games on a per-console scale. If SMB:BB was for the N64 in its present form, for example, it sure as hell wouldn't be an 8.4.
Uh, yeah. If you compare consoles. Which I wasn't. Fair examination though, if you're pitting PS3/360 against the Wii. The major problem that most people find with this argument (and why people will fight you on it) is that games are about gameplay first and foremost. Wii is trying something new (with success so far) while maintaining Nintendo's legacy games (i.e. Zelda:TP) while the other guys are mostly just cranking the graphical bar up for last-gen gameplay experiences. Resistance is a good example of what writers have called "PS2.5."
God bless you, graphics whore. Is Wii overpriced? Maybe a smidge. Is it still less than half the price of PS3? Yes, and clearly worth it at launch, given that Zelda is probably the GOTY. I don't blame you for complaining, but I'm content with that. For now.
They're not. I recall Nintendo losing last-gen while out-performing the PS2 hardware-wise, though. Nintendo wants to expand the market, and make their system stand out. GameCube's problem was that it wasn't quite as powerful as Xbox and not quite as popular as PS2. It was the middle child, and it suffered for it. Wii is trying to be the new baby in the family, getting all of the attention while big brother and big sister fight over who has the better graphics. We'll see how this works out.
To expand the market, you need to make your product cheap. Within the range of impulse buy. Or at least cheap enough so that it doesn't seem like a huge investment. Sony is losing $300 per PS3. Nintendo is making money on Wii. They're not in direct competition, but the end result could be that everybody buys a Wii. Some will stick with it as their sole console, most gamers will also purchase a 360 or PS3.
In my case, I got the 360 in September.
Wow. Just... wow.
crazygambit
Regular
A higher price doesn't necessarily mean higher profit. It'll depend on the price elasticity of demand, though I'll give you the fact that on or near launch it's inelastic as hell (therefore, yes, profit is higher). What happens a year from now though? Even with a possible price drop to $200 how would it compare with a $99 PS2 for value?
While I agree that reviews should usually cater to the people that own the platform, I feel is a little bit different this time. When you have a machine launching, reviews shouldn't be so much for the people that own the system as for people on the fence about getting it. For this holiday season a lot of people that haven't plunged into next-gen yet are looking for a system to buy (namely me), so I would very much appreciate if reviews compared the games with what's available for other platforms, all fighting for the same entertainment dollars (coming from my pocket no less).
Slightly OT: Zelda is coming for the Gamecube right? If so, then how is a $250 Wii suddently a great value because it has this GOTY contender for launch. Wouldn't a better value be playing it on the Cube? A little confused on that one.
That's why the differences would be expressed in the review text, and not in the scores. I don't expect the Wii versions of multiplat games to get those low kinds of score for graphics but of course reviewers can be expected to point out the differences in the review text. Won't be long until we'll be able to find out.
No. And there's a boatload of real-world examples of customers not getting confused on that shelf with DS games somewhere near you.RancidLunchMeat said:
Don't focus so much on the scores alone. The graphics score should be the least of your worries because today everyone who really wants to know how a game looks can overwhelm themselves with screenshots and videos free off the web. There's so much context there for graphics scores that you practically can't be fooled unless you want to be fooled.
crazygambit
Regular
To be fair, most people don't read the review text, at most they skim through it, especially when the title is a marginal purchase*. Also scores are the ammo of choice when comparing games on teh internets, even on different platforms! Review sites of course know this, so I would think they'd find a way to include it in the score somewhere.
*An example of a marginal purchase for me would be Untold Legends, since I was somewhat interested in the title, but now without reading a single review (just looking at scores) won't be getting in a million years.
And how did the "capability" of the console change in between the launch of DMC3 and then the launch of the SE version? Answer - it didn't. Therefore why the lower score?
Remember, the argument was that scores for graphics should be determined by how well the game used the capability of the console. And so if in your example the same game was released twice - then the score should be the same.
And yet how does a reviewer go about judging "what their platform can do" - especially when it has just launched? Furthermore, people are fixated on the concept of a console's "capabilities" whereas I argue that its more subjective and that the "capabilities" are merely tools that have the potential of impacting the score (positively or negatively). But the actual score itself also takes into account presentation/style, cohesiveness, etc. - parameters that are not necessarily borne out of a console's "capabilities".
Review scores are so incredibly subjective that it doesn't make sense to worry about them not being 100% logical.
Edit - I should add that I'm not saying that I'm in favor of cross platform comparisons - especially during a launch when that is all you have to compare it against. I'm just saying that I don't see the outrage. /shrug.
Last edited by a moderator:
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
And why wouldn't it? Check out the IGN comparison thread in the games section. They are already comparing PS3 to 360 games, directly. Why shouldn't the Wii be included in the mix? Because they choose not to compete in the graphics arena? They made the choice, the review scores should reflect that choice.
Take a look at Xbox PC ports. Far Cry, Halflife, Doom3, etc.. They got high scores because they were still the best looking console games available. But they got downgraded from their PC peers because of the comparison to their PC peers.
The comparisons will happen, they always have. As far as the DS goes, I can't really talk on that subject because I have no interest and know nothing about handhelds. I'm under the assumption that the DS is less-powerful than the PSP, but I'm also under the assumption that the games available for each platform are completely different.
The problem with the Wii isn't Super Smash Bros or Wii Sports, or any of their first party exclusives that will have unique art styles that won't have comparable titles on other platforms. The problem is when the Wii does try to bring games to its platform from genres that are better represented on the more powerful hardware of its competitors.
It's not cumbersome to look at a few screenshots, even if you can't be bothered reading a full review. It almost takes more time to make sense of IGN's sub-scores than to look at a half-dozen screenshots. If a game is in a genre that really doesn't interest you, that's not going to work but then high sub-scores won't draw you in either.
I don't think it really should be the reviewers' responsibility to help forum mudslingers. They have enough trouble rationalizing arbitrary rating systems and independence despite running ads etc. That being said, carefully selected images (and quotes) can make excellent ammo for forum combat. Sub-scores are cumbersome in comparison.
