| jimmay said: What you wrote makes no sense, it's a simple fact you can't hold the wii to different a different lower standard than the x360 and ps3 in terms of games and at the same time compare it's sales. Either you compare everything or compare nothing at all. If a game is short, shallow, has limited options, no online, poor a.i., bad graphics, bad sound with hit and miss controls then it's a bad game. Just because their is a casual crowd of people with poor taste in games who like short, shallow and easy, who don't care that it has limited options, no online, poor a.i., bad graphics, bad sound and hit and miss controls doesn't change the fact that it is still bad game. A poor game which is aimed at casual people with poor taste doesn't suddenly turn into a good one just because it met it's goal of being a bad game. |
You are either missing his point or (more likely) ignoring it so you can keep attacking the Wii. Why does online automatically make a game better? Would Twilight Princess be better with online play? It only really has one mode of plat too so I guess thats more points off for limited gameplay options. No loal multiplayer means even more points off. Doesn't have native 1080p at 60fps so that is more points off. It lacks 7.1 surrond sound as well so the sound sucks. I would give it a 3/10 over all by your standards. Do you see how ridiculous this is?
You can't come up with a list of absolutes that need to be in a game an expect it to be anything close to objective. Certain genres simply do not need certain aspects of gameplay that can exist. If you took out the single player portion of Wario Ware, and gave it even one more way to play multiplayer it would be twice as good easily. The epic story is meaningless and pointless. You could call the game shallow, but I can regularly beat people far less experienced than I am so there must be some skill involved somewhere. The game is only fun multiplayer, but online would not enhance it one bit. I know, you must think I am insane right now but it is the gods honest truth. It would just turn the multiplayer aspect into single player and make it pointless.
You are trying to project your requirements for a game onto everything released. Objective review does not work that way. Game reviews currently do work that way sadly, but hopefully that will work itself out. The games that get low review scores do not have glaring flaws. They are missing elements that would not enhance the gameplay experience. Wii Sports is a generation defining game and pushed an entire genre into the forefront of game development but is a mid 70s average review. It will be the game that defines this generation, but because it lacked elements that were arbitrarily decided to be necessary it got docked points. It is the driving force behind the success of the Wii and yet was viewed as some cheap cash-in tech demo that was barely worth playing by reviewers.
Not every game needs a huge list of features, or cutting edge graphics to be a good game. If it does not enhance the game play experience then what is the point? Would a epic story line about a bowling league tournament where you strive to beat out your lifelong rivals to win a big trophy enhance Wii Bowling? Would 1080p graphics make the game more enjoyable to play or simply make the game cost more to develop? If you want an objective review you have to ask these questions. You have to consider your audience or your review is meaningless. Any other method of trying to review a game puts in far too much personal bias and that ruins the point of the review.
