By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
HappySqurriel on 08 March 2008
Edit Thread
jimmay said:
HappySqurriel said:
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.


So the Beatles were an awful band because their muscianship was far below the quality level you would expect from a muscian in a PhilHarmonic Orchestra?

This isn't about the Wii! The fact that you see it that way demonstrates how blinded you are by your fanboy bias. By your standard the AI in a chess program that can challenge a world champion would be 'Poor AI' because it is not a first person shooter; and graphics that are perfect for a puzzle game would be 'Bad Graphics' because it doesn't involve an immersive 3D world.

This has nothing to do with giving games that are low quality high scores; this is about different genres having different things that are important to gameplay. You have yet to make a single argument against this, every post of yours has boiled down to "Wii games suck! They don't deserve higher scores!"

Once again, this has nothing to do with the Wii ... What is so wrong about reviewing a game based on what is important within its genre? If a game has good graphics, AI, music and plays well why should it be doomed to get a 7/10 because it is a party game? You may think a party game is shallow, other people will differ, why shouldn't a party games score relate to how good of a party game it is rather than it being a reflection of deep of gameplay it offers by your standard? If it is the best party game on the market to date should its reviews reflect that?


We are talking about the wii's games so yes we are talking about the wii. This is what you don't seem to grasp, their are such things as good party games. Party games/mini games aren't automatically doomed to receive a low score just because they are a party game. If a party game got a low score then it's because it had bad gameplay not just because it was a party game and their for can never be good in the first place. I've been describing to you some of the tangible differences between games such as graphics, sound and online, however if the gameplay of game sucks, then it sucks, you seem to think these party games with bad gameplay are some how great and reviewers and myself are biased against them, when we are not. As well as gameplay being the problem these games have a lack of basic features. Taking away peoples options is a bad thing, full stop no debate. If some people don't use them then no harm done. How do know that all, most or some of casual gamers wouldn't like a game more if it had a decent set of features. This is a reply i gave in another post about wii bowling and i'll use to show what i mean:

'Using your wii bowling example i'll show you why these features would make it better. As well as being able to play as mii's why can't you play as real life professional bowlers, how would having the option of playing as these people make the game any worse? As well as having an exibition mode to play one off games, how would the inclusion of bowling tournaments to win trophies that you can show off make the game worse? As well as playing your friends round your house how would the addition of adding online play make the game worse? If you wanted to look at it, how would the option of looking at your detailed bowling stats make the game worse, if you don't care about them then don't go to the stats page, if you're interested and wanted to see what type of shots you do the most and what type of shots you do best/worst at then why shouldn't you be able to? If you don't want to listen to music when you bowl then fine you don't have to, but why not include the option to have custom sound tracks if you want them? Why not add proper leaderboards that track your scores, how would that make the game worse? Also why not add more game modes, you don't have to play them, but if you want to they are their. Also why not make the game so you can create custom bowling balls, custom pins and custom bowling clothes to bowl in. None of those things make the game worse, they only make them better.'

 


Certainly, there are good party games but (on the whole) their reviews do not demonstrate this; there are only 4 party games to ever receive a score over 80% on Gamerankings.com and 3 of them probably do not belong in the genre (Super Monkey Ball, Super Monkey Ball 2, and Super Monkey Ball Deluxe). Mario Party for the N64 defined the genre, revolutionized how people think of local multiplayer gaming, and was one of the definitive games of the generation and yet only averaged 76% ...