Simple answer: Yes, the
graphics category should get docked. The sub-categoies on sites like IGN are ment to convey a specific quality. In this case graphics.
Most review sites, though, don't bind the final score by a relationship to each category. e.g. Imagine the following game:
Presentation: 6 "Simple menus that take some navigating, but not a big detourant; HUD is a little small, but servicable; average last gen interface missing many of the bells and whistles"
Graphics: 4 "Barely servicable. Obvously R&D was put into gameplay because this looks like a last gen title with higher resolution. Many textures are simple and not very detailed. Some animations are jerky with poor transitions. Some rendering bugs with lighting and shadowing. As much as they don't add anything at all to the genre, they avoid being a stumbling block to the core game mechanics"
Sound: 4 "Quality is average but sounds are simplistic and often repetitive. Poor music, which can thankfully be turned off"
Gameplay: 10 "Perfectly executed gameplay balance, innovation, and depth--engrossing and fun at their best. If only all developers paid this sort of attention to game mechanics and balance. The game plays out differently each time, yet the user never feels frustrated when attempting to adapting to the ever changing balance of the game"
Lasting Appeal: 10 "A host of multi-player options (Co-op; Multiplayer online and with bots with dozens of game types that can be mixed and matched; maps that scale to player count to keep the game fresh and focused regardless of party size; excellent match making and lobby systems create an atmosphere that transcends the game and pulls players into this unique community) as well as a SP experience that will have you coming back for more (multiple endings, different paths to travel, tons of objectives that only become available by taking different paths, different gameplay mechanics depending on style--loner or by the books team guy?). This game rewards players with instant gratification, but also allows gamers to continue reliving the world in different ways"
Does this title deserve a
6.8?
Obviously graphics have their place and are important. They are part of the experience and can convey a lot of emotion as well as immerse the gamer into the world. Some games can even excell based on the experience the graphics convey. Yet there
can be more to a game than graphics.
In the end graphics, sound, and so forth are just elements of a game, but don't dictate how great a game is. A lot of people still love older games--but doesn't mean they would inflate the graphics score. e.g. I think Mario Kart (SNES) is probably the best of the home console series in regards to game mechanics and fun. I would rate it as a 1 on graphics (horrible... servicable, but horrible) compared to a next gen racer. But if it were released today I think I could make a compelling arguement that it remains possibly the best game in its genre (arcade-kart racing). Of course few would give it the time of day due to the graphics, but that wouldn't negate what it brings to the table.
360 games have been criticized at times for not matching up to the PC versions. While I would limit such to "home consoles" for a score, it is a worthwhile note and comparison.
As for Wii, Iwata said we would go "Wow" when we saw Wii graphics. Maybe there is more under the hood, maybe not. But it is competing in the home console market. Sure, they are branching out... yet so are MS (XBLA, Online out of the box from day 1) and Sony (Home Media Center, HD media, Online out of the box, "PC" features).
One could argue that Wii scores should only be compared to Wii titles (which can be VERY difficult at the beginning) or they can be within the market. Or they can do a dual score, i.e. Overall/Platform. To ignore the competition though ignores the fact many titles are cross platform (Madden, CoD, etc)
No easy answer, but we all know the PS2 and Xbox were compared (IGN even had a comparison video show). Nintendo chose to invest elsewhere, but it doesn't make graphics less important. Telling consumers "Great game--more fun than on the other platforms--but only servicable graphics" gives a pretty good contemporary feedback, especially to those looking to purchase new systems.
So the real question is are scores ment only for those who own a platform, or for relative to the quality of other titles on the market, or some of both...
That is one reason numeric scores are difficult without expressing what they represent.
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?
Console FPS do get knocked at times for not having intuititive and well designed controls. Especially when the analog sticks are poorly executed or button layout for input.
And yes, I think if/when Wii games demonstrate a significant edge in control it should be factored in--many of us consider this when looking at console FPS. Are the controls well adapted to a controller or did they take a KB/MS setup and just try to map it on, and thus frustrating the gamer with a game balance that requires fine percision yet the input device fails?
And you can bet your bottom dollar a ton of Wii games get high scores because they have unique gameplay that creates new experiences not available on a gamepad. And if Sony/MS tried to jump on such a gaming concept mapped to a standard controller and it was only servicable, but not great, and the rest of the game looked like a Wii game I am sure it would get poor reviews.
And to reverse it, if a 8.0 FPS titles ends up on the PS3/X360 and has a high score largely because it has killer graphics -- but generic, slightly above average gameplay -- and takes the same average gameplay and gets totally downgraded graphically on Wii the graphics tilt should go the other way and the title should lose points because the lone "killer" point of having the game no longer stands.
