By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
jimmay said:

Well for starters a console is different from a pc like it is different from a handheld but if you want to cherry pick things i'll just do the same. Their is not a huge difference between a mouse and keyboard vs a controllers but a controller is better than the wii remote for fps's anyway. Apart from dedicated servers (which some consoles games have) a console has all the options of the pc. Wii can't do 720p or 1080p so i guess it should be deducted points for that.....

So lets say we have 2 versions of a game. Lets say it is fifa 09, one is the wii version and the other is the 360 version. The two versions of the game are identical except for the 360 version has online. Although both use different types of contollers they both work equally well and they are both as good as each other in that respect. Now although graphically this hypothetical game looks the same on both consoles because the wii has a lower standard of graphics the wii version should score higher than the 360 version because the game is a good looking game for the wii and only an average looking one for the 360.....and at the same time because wii owners don't care about online it doesn't matter that the wii version doesnt have online and shouldn't be deducted any points? Well using this great logic, even tho this hypothetical game is identical accept for the wii having no online (which makes it worse) the wii version would score higher and not lower than the 360, which is completly backwards when the wii is the worst version.

As the only person who actually uses Dual Analog, Keyboard and Mouse, and Wiimote and Nunchuk for FPS games of the two of us, let me present you with a simple fact: You're wrong. The Wiimote and Nunchuk is far more accurate andn precise than a dual analog control scheme, and the Keyboard and Mouse makes dual analog look like caveman tools.

See, I'm a PC gamer above all else. I play far more PC games than console games and am constantly faced with the massive inferiority of consoles.

Example? You play CoD4 online against a maximum of 16 people and 600P, but I play online against a maximum of 50 people at 1680X1050 resolution and in a far superior online system with far less lag, that is free, and with better graphics to top it off. By your standards, CoD4 on the consoles should be lucky to earn itself an 8, and shouldn't be rated anywhere near the PC version.

On the other hand, Resident Evil 4 on Wii offers a control scheme far superior to the dual analog scheme in RE4 on the Gamecube and PS2, and now Resident Evil 5 is going to use that same control scheme on the PS3 and 360. Because this control scheme is inherintly inferior to the Wii control scheme due to the technical limitations of the PS3 and 360, by your standards the 360 and PS3 versions should be marked down signifficantly in gameplay.

The fact is that if we don't rate games by their own merits on the console they are on, no game will ever be rated within reasonable standards. That said, if there is a game genre that is never fun on one console due to controls or online system or some other reason (Like the joke that is RTS games on analog sticks), then it's perfectly reasonable to subtract points from it, but it should not be a competition with the other console's games.

I love how you think PC is too different from 360 and PS3 for direct comparison but Wii is not. Your fanboyism is palpable.