I'm sort of wondering what reviewers' expectations for Wii's graphics are. So far, nothing's gotten above a 7.0 for graphics on IGN. Excite Truck got a 6.0 on Gamespot. This reminds me of early DS reviews, which all got horrible scores for graphics "because this game doesn't look nearly as good as a PSP game." So do you think reviewers are judging the graphics of Wii games based on how they stand up next to X360 titles (and if so, is that fair? I see pros and cons to this), or do they have higher expectations for the machine?
Wii Review Scores--A Little Skewed?
- Thread starter fearsomepirate
- Start date
I kinda asked this in the resistance thread, it's kind of an interesting topic to me. I would hope that they are gauging graphics based on the best looking Wii games as they should instead of other titles on other platforms (ps3 & 360 of course). If Zelda and Mario don't get high marks on the graphics scale then that should be a red flag that something is up. IMO I think those are a couple of the best looking Wii titles.
DUALDISASTER
Newcomer
I read it too, but what i got from it wasn't in line of what you got from it. It seems legit with gripes about ground textures being blurry. In my eyes there's no excuse for it but it's worth the discussion. What other games were reviewed?
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
You cant escape people comparing wii gfx to ps3/x360 gfx. People will always do that because all three are new machines. Unfortunally they forget that the wii isnt focussing on gfx. They end up saying games look but because they arnt as good looking as ps3/x360 gfx but imo that is like saying a BMW M5 is a slow car because it cant keep up with a Ferrari Enzo. Yes compared to the Enzo a M5 is slow, but the M5 is still faster than most other cars out there. The same goes for the Wii. Its not a ps3/x360 but that doesnt mean its not fast. Its just not as fast as a ps3/x360.
Though they are true that most Wii games atm look like shit. Far Cry is a good example of a game that probably could even run on ps2 with its current gfx.
Though they are true that most Wii games atm look like shit. Far Cry is a good example of a game that probably could even run on ps2 with its current gfx.
Gradthrawn
Veteran
Nintendo has made it clear that they're out of the "arms" race in terms of graphics. However, the competition is still in, and since graphics are, believe it or not, considered important in video games the comparison to the competition is fair. They made their decision, SCE and MS made theirs. Ford can't say "we'll, we're not going to focus on quality, so don't judge our cars on that when comparing them to others. Only look at our strengths." That's just not going to fly. SCE has stated that they're going for a more open platform approach for their online "service" versus MS' closed and propriety system. They each have their benefits, but do you think for a minute that they shouldn't be compared? Can SCE just claim, "well, its free and open so you can't compare it"? Absolutely not. That would destroy the very spirit of competition. The games are marked down for graphics and they should be, because they pale in comparison to the competition. The control scheme will undoubtedly reflect in the review score as well, and if done correctly, should net a higher fun factor then the competitors offerings. They can't have it both ways, higher points for better control, but no hit for worse graphics.
Last edited by a moderator:
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
The problem is that, unlike you say, I think the controller wont be factored in. It will be factored in for Wii games, but not for x360/ps3 games. If you have a shooter for ps3/x360 with good controlls for a analog controller reviewers probably wont say well this works alot better with the wiimote or a mouse. So scores wont be affected unlike the Wii scores that will be effected because the games look less good than ps3/x360 games.
Gradthrawn
Veteran
You have a point. That is a distinct possibility, but I think we'll see that reviewers do compare the controls, for the multiplatform games that do actually stretch across the PS3/360 and the Wii. However, in the case that we have two different games, one for PS360, the other for the Wii, things will probably be a bit more complicated. The review for the PS360 game likely won't mention how the control scheme would have played out on the Wii (since there is no Wii version), or even try to extrapolate what it could have been. However, the controls will be judged. If the control system is wonderful, then it’s wonderful. It doesn't matter how its done, or for what platform, just that it was done. If a good job was done on the control schema for a Wii game then that will reflect in the review score, positively. Of course that will not count against the score of a PS360 if they do the controls right (ie good controls vs better controls). If a game is more fun due to the controls, I can't see how that wouldn't be translated into its review score.
The whole premise behind the Wii is to make things more accessible and fun to play. Failure to do so falls on the developer, not the reviewer/player. Its pretty easy to tell when a control schema sucks. Its also pretty easy to tell when it works great. However, it is a bit harder to tell which is better between two great control systems. That is a battle Nintendo will face. But, that’s the path they’ve chosen. I've always been of the opinion that Nintendo needs to push gameplay that can't done on any other platform, not do a different take on gameplay that's being done on other platforms. It needs games that are outstanding because of the gameplay elements the controller allows developers to introduce, not standard gameplay elements simply done differently for the controller.
Last edited by a moderator:
But PS2 games don't get marked down for not having normal mapping or per-pixel lighting. Granted, the PS2/Xbox gap isn't as big as the Wii/X360 gap. Or, more analogously, GBA games don't get docked for not having 3D graphics. In my opinion, a game's graphics should be judged based on how well it uses the available hardware, not based on the hardware itself. It's not fair to punish a developer for not using hardware that isn't there.
If you've only got 88 MB of RAM and limited fillrate, ground textures aren't going to be super-sharp. I've noticed that reviewers sometimes complain that DS games have low-res textures in games with large areas and consequently dock it points. Hello? 4 MB of RAM, anyone?
Excite Truck doesn't look good as alot of PS2 Gamecube or Xbox game for that matter. If anything the overall score for the game was too high espesically because it lacks ALOT of features. lf they were comparing them to X360 or PS3 it would be similar to say Final Fantasy XI or Phantasy Star Universe on X360. They got like a 4.0 for graphics or something like that and they are both on par with Excite Truck in graphics. Super Monkey Ball got a 8.0 for graphics from IGN because it looks pretty good unlike Wii sports, Excite Truck etc....
Gradthrawn
Veteran
Lets do a closely paralleled, but simplified, hypothetical.
I'm looking at product X, Y, and Z. Each product has a different producer. Each product also has three different categories on which they compete, categories A, B, and C. Each producer devotes a certain amount of resources to each of those categories. On a scale of 1 to 10 it breaks down like this:
Product X
- A: 10
- B: 5
- C: 7
- A: 7
- B: 10
- C: 5
- A: 5
- B: 7
- C: 10
Exactly.
OTOH this is the very first wave. You need to leave a little room upwards, because there will be games that look much better after a year or two. You can't dish out 9.5s and 10s for graphics now, you wouldn't be able to express any improvements. That, and reviewers simply need time to feel around the capabilities of the system.
IMO 8.5s, maybe 9.0s are the maximum reasonable scores that should be awarded to graphics on a launch game. Above that and it's just racketeering.
Thread Moved
I move this thread to the general forum, given that it's not game specific, if you don't mind, fearsomepirate.
On topic, personally, I'd rate the graphic part of all Wii games on a zero to five scale... out of ten. And I'll dock three points out of theses lasting five, without discussion, to the games running in 16bit mode (like Elebit. Terrible stuff.)
But then again, if I were to review game I wouldn't use any numerical score of any sort, I'd just add a sum up of the write up on the different elements that part of the game (gameplay/graphics/sound) at the end of the review for those who want a quick overview of the game. The bad side of that, in case of Wii game review, would be that you'd have to dwelve throught pages and pages of unrestrained hate, all written in a barely comprehensible frenglish, describing precisely all the technical flaws of the game. Thus blaming indirectly, or not, the software for the hardware shortcomings.
But I'm an incorrigible graphic connaisseur, so let's say that I don't count or that I'm not fitting into the Wii targeted demographics.
I move this thread to the general forum, given that it's not game specific, if you don't mind, fearsomepirate.
On topic, personally, I'd rate the graphic part of all Wii games on a zero to five scale... out of ten. And I'll dock three points out of theses lasting five, without discussion, to the games running in 16bit mode (like Elebit. Terrible stuff.)
But then again, if I were to review game I wouldn't use any numerical score of any sort, I'd just add a sum up of the write up on the different elements that part of the game (gameplay/graphics/sound) at the end of the review for those who want a quick overview of the game. The bad side of that, in case of Wii game review, would be that you'd have to dwelve throught pages and pages of unrestrained hate, all written in a barely comprehensible frenglish, describing precisely all the technical flaws of the game. Thus blaming indirectly, or not, the software for the hardware shortcomings.
But I'm an incorrigible graphic connaisseur, so let's say that I don't count or that I'm not fitting into the Wii targeted demographics.
Excuse me, but this is absurd. It would be like rating photography based on how well it uses the lens and camera. It would be interesting for some kind of developer site like Gamasutra, but for a site for the general public, the test should be the "grandma test" : you take your grandma to a room with three identical TV sets running three games, she says what looks best. You don't need to know the number of ALUs, bandwidth or actual framebuffer resolution vs. display resolution to tell if you like the picture or not.
If somebody makes the new Shadow of the Colossus for Wii, it should get a 10/10 for graphics. If somebody makes Far Cry, only with blurry textures, smaller levels and less geometry, it should get a lower rating on "graphics" than the same Far Cry on another, more capable platform.
It becomes absurd only if you remove the context. Many reviewers have given good graphics scores to DS or GBA games, which may be absurd on an absolute scale, but in the context of a game existing on a certain platform, for which you have certain expectations, that's okay.
For a different analogy that could work more in my favor: suppose someone goes around visiting friends and calls even the most elaborate home theater setups cheap pathetic shit. Then, in response to the blank stares that are earned, that person would mention that they had been at a cinema and the stuff there was just so much better
Gradthrawn
Veteran
It becomes absurd only if you remove the context. Many reviewers have given good graphics scores to DS or GBA games, which may be absurd on an absolute scale, but in the context of a game existing on a certain platform, for which you have certain expectations, that's okay.
For a different analogy that could work more in my favor: suppose someone goes around visiting friends and calls even the most elaborate home theater setups cheap pathetic shit. Then, in response to the blank stares that are earned, that person would mention that they had been at a cinema and the stuff there was just so much better
Hmmm.... You do make a good point. How to factor in relative vs absolute value? Relative in comparison to what else is on the system, and absolute is what else is out there on competitive platforms. I could see not wanting to delve too much into the absolute, unless we're talking about direct comparisons of multiplatform games. Mario Galaxy, from what I've seen, looks pretty darn good, and would likely get a 8 or 9 in graphics. However, it obviously couldn't compete with a PS360 equivalent. But that doesn't stop it from looking good... Hmm...
So by the same token if someone creates a game on 360 or PS3 with the best controls a standard game pad can offer the controls should still be rated as poor if they aren't as good as Wii's controller could offer?
Last edited by a moderator:
