dunno001 said: Torillian said: adsl said: I enjoyed Final Fantasy Crystal Bearers too and it deserves a better reviews. Since it is a Wii game the reviewers just don't like it. Wii has already a very strong and diverse library, unique titles like FFCB, RS2, NMH2 and Just Dance keep coming, but you know that they will have bad reviews only because they aren't hd titles... And all those pages and pages that reviewers wrote about the game as to why they thought it deserved the score they gave?  Was that all just a front so they could mask their bias?  What a bunch of BS. Actually, yes, it is a front. They always compare it to what "could have been" (or in their eyes, "should" have been) on the PS3 or 360. Since the graphics aren't as good, they dock it points right there. Add in quite a few of them who whine about "the waggle", others whining about the "casualness" of its games, and the ones that just in general don't like Nintendo, and they'll skew the words however they can to trash a Wii game. What they are not doing is reviewing for the people who care about the game. They're reviewing based on where they want to see gaming go, ie, a stagnant and slowly shrinking red ocean. Yes, there's the occasional blockbuster that makes gaming seem larger than ever, but in general, games are not selling as well as developers need, and they're going out of business as a result. But the Wii requires companies to shift how they do things- "they" meaning publishers, developers, and yes, reviewers. Rather than do that, they'll slight the Wii, trashtalk it, do what they can in hopes that someone picks up on this and decides to not get a Wii, getting something else instead. It becomes another person that they can sell the same old tricks to. All because they just don't want to change. EDIT IN REPLY TO POST ABOVE THIS: You mention some Nintendo games as getting high scores. I'll counter that by referencing my first line- what could be on the HD systems. They know that Nintendo won't make a game for someone else. So they can't compare it to something else, and actually have to review it based on its merits. This results in the higher scores, and, for Nintendo's better games, also allows them to help perpetuate the "belief" that only Nintendo games sell on Nintendo systems, and that "we can't compete with Nintendo." Get the smaller guys to give up, go HD, and keep fueling what they want. Gotta take some lumps to get what you want; giving Nintendo's own games good scores, while usually deserving, is the easiest, and feeds another slight. @pots555: Where is this Fragile cult? I think I need to go join it...

Man, they are just pointing out they dont like the game acording to their tastes, has it ever crossed your mind that someone might not like the games you do? Im tired of this "everyone wants the wii to fail" conspiracy wii owners use when the games they like get bad reviews.

I loved folklore on ps3 and it didnt get good scores, but that doesnt mean reviewers are stupid or anything like that, I know the game has its flaws but there is something I love but I dont expect anyone to think the same way I do. 

Torillian said: dunno001 said: Torillian said: adsl said: I enjoyed Final Fantasy Crystal Bearers too and it deserves a better reviews. Since it is a Wii game the reviewers just don't like it. Wii has already a very strong and diverse library, unique titles like FFCB, RS2, NMH2 and Just Dance keep coming, but you know that they will have bad reviews only because they aren't hd titles... And all those pages and pages that reviewers wrote about the game as to why they thought it deserved the score they gave?  Was that all just a front so they could mask their bias?  What a bunch of BS. Actually, yes, it is a front. They always compare it to what "could have been" (or in their eyes, "should" have been) on the PS3 or 360. Since the graphics aren't as good, they dock it points right there. Add in quite a few of them who whine about "the waggle", others whining about the "casualness" of its games, and the ones that just in general don't like Nintendo, and they'll skew the words however they can to trash a Wii game. What they are not doing is reviewing for the people who care about the game. They're reviewing based on where they want to see gaming go, ie, a stagnant and slowly shrinking red ocean. Yes, there's the occasional blockbuster that makes gaming seem larger than ever, but in general, games are not selling as well as developers need, and they're going out of business as a result. But the Wii requires companies to shift how they do things- "they" meaning publishers, developers, and yes, reviewers. Rather than do that, they'll slight the Wii, trashtalk it, do what they can in hopes that someone picks up on this and decides to not get a Wii, getting something else instead. It becomes another person that they can sell the same old tricks to. All because they just don't want to change. EDIT IN REPLY TO POST ABOVE THIS: You mention some Nintendo games as getting high scores. I'll counter that by referencing my first line- what could be on the HD systems. They know that Nintendo won't make a game for someone else. So they can't compare it to something else, and actually have to review it based on its merits. This results in the higher scores, and, for Nintendo's better games, also allows them to help perpetuate the "belief" that only Nintendo games sell on Nintendo systems, and that "we can't compete with Nintendo." Get the smaller guys to give up, go HD, and keep fueling what they want. Gotta take some lumps to get what you want; giving Nintendo's own games good scores, while usually deserving, is the easiest, and feeds another slight. And what about Cave Story, Little King's Story, NMH2, World of Goo?  Did reviewers just not want those on HD consoles so they gave them undeservingly high scores for no reason? Disagreeing with reviews is natural, everyone has their view on things and it makes complete sense not to take reviews as gospel.  On the other hand, believing that there's some anti-Wii conspiracy to try and take it down is just borderline insane.

Those games you gave as examples? Cave Story and World of Goo are both WiiWare. I've never claimed that DL games aren't judged fairly, I guess it was my bad in not clarifying that by "Wii game", I reference retail releases. I think that WW, XBLA and PSN releases seem to be judged more fairly and evenly. As for LKS, well, just look at the graphics. It's "kiddy." That's not what we want to see with gaming. And it ties in well to the "kiddy" audience of the Wii. So we'll review it for the kids. And NMH2 got a better review to hype the series for the remake of NMH1 coming to HD. Can't be trashing a series that we're going to be getting, after all. Make it seem good, and get a port for ourselves.

On the second part, yes, I knew some people would disagree with me, such is the nature of opinions. But I don't think it's "borderline insane" as you call it. Shanobi's post actually says some of what I think. Way back in the day, before the internet was big, we had to rely on magazines for information. They knew that gaming was expensive, and that we wanted the good games. So all games got fair, and truthfully, more harsh, reviews. (I still remember Nintendo Power giving Superman 64 a 1.9/5.) But then things took off, and more money and readers from the internet came. It became a case of catering to the readers and advertisers. Since the first to sites were the "hardcore" gamers, they were pandered to. And as things grew, the "professional" gaming media latched onto the "hardcore" mentality. It fed to their readers, the very ones paying the bills. No longer was it a case of honesty, it's a case of keeping the money coming in, journalistic integrity be damned.

leo-j said: Shanobi said: Torillian said: adsl said: I enjoyed Final Fantasy Crystal Bearers too and it deserves a better reviews. Since it is a Wii game the reviewers just don't like it. Wii has already a very strong and diverse library, unique titles like FFCB, RS2, NMH2 and Just Dance keep coming, but you know that they will have bad reviews only because they aren't hd titles... And all those pages and pages that reviewers wrote about the game as to why they thought it deserved the score they gave?  Was that all just a front so they could mask their bias?  What a bunch of BS. Often what they write is a bunch of b.s.. It's not unheard of for game reviewers to "review" games that they haven't even played. In fact, from the retractions this generation, and the sheer epic size of many titles these days, it's becoming more of a trend. And I wish more gamers could have been around for the old guard of video game coverage. Back before the internet you would have magazines like EGM, and you never got the feeling from any of them that they had a horse in the race. But things aren't the same now, and companies have tons of money riding on the line with their HD costs, so these days it's all about the $$$. based on what? Maybe you should play a game like Uncharted before saying it's all bull $hit and conspiracy against the wii. Maybe the game's on the wii truely do not offer an experience as great as some available on the PS3 or XBOX 360.  Reviewers are payed to give a professional review on a game. Compared to game's that received ratings in the 90s(super mario galaxy, legend of zelda), would you agree that the game's listed on the OP deserve scores that high too?

No reviewers are set up in nice  hotels with free drinks and free games on the publishers dime. Professional these people are not

And who mentioned uncharted? 

mhsillen said: leo-j said: Shanobi said: Torillian said: adsl said: I enjoyed Final Fantasy Crystal Bearers too and it deserves a better reviews. Since it is a Wii game the reviewers just don't like it. Wii has already a very strong and diverse library, unique titles like FFCB, RS2, NMH2 and Just Dance keep coming, but you know that they will have bad reviews only because they aren't hd titles... And all those pages and pages that reviewers wrote about the game as to why they thought it deserved the score they gave?  Was that all just a front so they could mask their bias?  What a bunch of BS. Often what they write is a bunch of b.s.. It's not unheard of for game reviewers to "review" games that they haven't even played. In fact, from the retractions this generation, and the sheer epic size of many titles these days, it's becoming more of a trend. And I wish more gamers could have been around for the old guard of video game coverage. Back before the internet you would have magazines like EGM, and you never got the feeling from any of them that they had a horse in the race. But things aren't the same now, and companies have tons of money riding on the line with their HD costs, so these days it's all about the $$$. based on what? Maybe you should play a game like Uncharted before saying it's all bull $hit and conspiracy against the wii. Maybe the game's on the wii truely do not offer an experience as great as some available on the PS3 or XBOX 360.  Reviewers are payed to give a professional review on a game. Compared to game's that received ratings in the 90s(super mario galaxy, legend of zelda), would you agree that the game's listed on the OP deserve scores that high too? No reviewers are set up in nice  hotels with free drinks and free games on the publishers dime. Professional these people are not And who mentioned uncharted?

It was an example

Reviews are a tricky business indeed but I don't think the problems I have with them are because they aren't giving them high enough scores haha. My main issue comes with them not using a 1-10 scale. Using a 5-10 scale for me is where the issues lies.

I too enjoyed Crystal Bearers, but I think the complaints the reviewers had and the score they gave for it was justified. It was in no way a great game but it wasn't bad either. Was enjoyable for what you got but it had numerous flaws. Don't know about the Calling though, but I've heard mixed opinions from people who have played it.

Rather silly that most are complaining about this guy's complaint on the review system, when I know most of them have made similar ones for select games. Point being, we all find issues with review scores from games we enjoy and don't enjoy. Reviews are only a guide for the experience you'll encounter not exactly how you will end up feeling about it.


And on the last note, is their bias against Wii games? Potentially but I could say that about almost every system's games to a small extent. Making that overarching statement, like many of the dissenters to that notion in this thread have made before, is probably a little silly because we just don't know. Best to just read each review on its own, take what you can out of it, and move on to whether you'll buy it or not.


And one other point. Why do people care how a game has been reviewed after you played it? Even though I make the same mistake I'm about to point out, reviews are supposed to influence buying decisions. If you've already played it, your opinion is the only thing that matters. Let's all try to keep that in mind.

pastro243 said: dunno001 said: Torillian said: adsl said: I enjoyed Final Fantasy Crystal Bearers too and it deserves a better reviews. Since it is a Wii game the reviewers just don't like it. Wii has already a very strong and diverse library, unique titles like FFCB, RS2, NMH2 and Just Dance keep coming, but you know that they will have bad reviews only because they aren't hd titles... And all those pages and pages that reviewers wrote about the game as to why they thought it deserved the score they gave?  Was that all just a front so they could mask their bias?  What a bunch of BS. Actually, yes, it is a front. They always compare it to what "could have been" (or in their eyes, "should" have been) on the PS3 or 360. Since the graphics aren't as good, they dock it points right there. Add in quite a few of them who whine about "the waggle", others whining about the "casualness" of its games, and the ones that just in general don't like Nintendo, and they'll skew the words however they can to trash a Wii game. What they are not doing is reviewing for the people who care about the game. They're reviewing based on where they want to see gaming go, ie, a stagnant and slowly shrinking red ocean. Yes, there's the occasional blockbuster that makes gaming seem larger than ever, but in general, games are not selling as well as developers need, and they're going out of business as a result. But the Wii requires companies to shift how they do things- "they" meaning publishers, developers, and yes, reviewers. Rather than do that, they'll slight the Wii, trashtalk it, do what they can in hopes that someone picks up on this and decides to not get a Wii, getting something else instead. It becomes another person that they can sell the same old tricks to. All because they just don't want to change. EDIT IN REPLY TO POST ABOVE THIS: You mention some Nintendo games as getting high scores. I'll counter that by referencing my first line- what could be on the HD systems. They know that Nintendo won't make a game for someone else. So they can't compare it to something else, and actually have to review it based on its merits. This results in the higher scores, and, for Nintendo's better games, also allows them to help perpetuate the "belief" that only Nintendo games sell on Nintendo systems, and that "we can't compete with Nintendo." Get the smaller guys to give up, go HD, and keep fueling what they want. Gotta take some lumps to get what you want; giving Nintendo's own games good scores, while usually deserving, is the easiest, and feeds another slight. @pots555: Where is this Fragile cult? I think I need to go join it... Man, they are just pointing out they dont like the game acording to their tastes, has it ever crossed your mind that someone might not like the games you do? Im tired of this "everyone wants the wii to fail" conspiracy wii owners use when the games they like get bad reviews. I loved folklore on ps3 and it didnt get good scores, but that doesnt mean reviewers are stupid or anything like that, I know the game has its flaws but there is something I love but I dont expect anyone to think the same way I do.

Umm... yeah? There are some games I like that I know are niche. While I think Persona 4 is a great game, I was shocked to see it do as well as it did review-wise. But I sit back and look at it, maybe they actually reviewed it based on the fans of Persona 3, and that would explain the score- it was targetted to its audience correctly. Nowhere do I claim that every game I like should get 90+, or anything of the sort. Rather, it's the consistancy of low Wii scores I look at. Yes, some of them deserve it, probably about in the same ratio of HD games that get low scores, maybe a tad more due to its popularity. But are there really so few games that deserve to get 85+ on the system? No. And why is it, that so few Wii games get better scores? There has to be a reason for it. And I really think that this reason has come down to a reviewer bias. The occasional good score is thrown out to say "See? We're not biased!" In those few cases, it means that they usually reviewed the game correctly- toward its target audience. And for quite a few Wii games, the "professional reviewer" is not the target, yet they still review it as though they were. And they let this feed their bias, making it worse. "This game didn't meet what I want to see; the Wii must be a crap system!" And thus the cycle continues...

Blasphemy! Who do you think you are, a being capable of thinking for himself? Hah!

mpereira said: I look at reviews as a percentage. If a reviewer gives a 3.5 to a game. I know that in 100 people only 35 will like the game. I use this thoughts because in my experience every game is loved by someone. One great example is casual games. Even if it received a mediocre score it could be the most funniest game to a person.

That's an odd way of looking at it.... there are a great many games that get high scores, but don't sell well simply because most people don't enjoy them, Okami for example.

Similarly a lot of games that score relatively low are loved by millions.

---

To me, reviews are useless, and that includes non-gaming media.... I don't even consider critics or reviews, and certainly not any kind of scoring system when choosing a book, or looking at art (art critics being there to basically bully people into believing what they believe) same for films... in fact I don't think I have ever read a review properly forany of those three media.

Music I on rare occasions read reviews to see if they are compared to any other artists i like, I never look at scores.

Games I often read at least 1 review of a game I am buying, though I have usually already made my decision about buying it beforehand based on preview information, reviews are only useful for me to read about what the content of the game is, I don't form an opinion of how good that content might be from someone else, and while I at least take notice of scores in gaming, I don't actually take notice (if you get my drift... a kind of look but don't see scenario, ormore correctly: see but don't care)

I enjoy games that get low ratings too but i never feel like any of those games are worth the full 50$ price tag unlike the games i have that are rated 80+.

Ditto with Disaster Day of crisis for us - third play through now ans still loving it. The combination of Time Crisis shooting, roaming section and driving keeps it fresh. Shame it never made it to America - Reggie should have let it through - flaws and all.