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

Forums - Sales Discussion - Proof that reviewers are biased towards HD games.

almcchesney said:
lol it cant be because they improved framerate and added trophies could it...
and thats all the Metroid collection was was a port of a really good game, to make it a well really good game with wii controls that still looked like the last game....
I dont like the wii controls, sure its easier sometime but give me my damn button to quick change weapons.

Actually Metroid Prime Trilogy added achievements too.  The loading times have also been drastically reduced, and you're getting THREE games for the price of one.  As far weapons go, it's far quicker to change weapons on Trilogy than in the old games.  Adding pointer functionality changes the actual GAMEPLAY for the better, whereas just changing graphics adds nothing to the game itself.  I think that's what the OP is saying.



Around the Network

The real solution is to stop giving a shit about reviewers. New gamers are way ahead of us on that one.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

Er...that's not proof, and it's a stupid argument anyway.



 

I blame Wii Fit...+!!!

ph4nt said:

After a quick visit to the most trustworthy determinant of a games quality, metacritic, I found something SHOCKING.

 

God of War Co

This is undeniable proof of how BROKEN the review system is, you may ask "so what, this is just one example!" but the review scores ACROSS THE BOARD have been higher for HD systems simply because they were in HD.

Calkl of duty: Modern Warfare ps360 = 94

Call of Duty Modern Warfare Wii = 77

I rest my case.

EDIT: sorry, meant to put this in general gaming, BUT DOESNT MATTER BECAUSE PEOPLE NEED TO SEE THIS BLASPHEMY.

Ok, because I haven't seen a proper response by anyone except torillian, here's most of the reason why those reviews happened.

As a preface to this argument because it will be brought up frequently, games are generally scored based on what is available on the system. Most reviewers don't score games against games on other platforms, they score them based on how they currently fit and whether it is a "buy" or not. The higher the score, the more you should consider buying it over another game.

Now then:

GoW not only went HD but also expanded the image area, as explained by someone in these forums. The ps2 version, and ps2 games in general saved processing power by cutting a portion of the viewable area which didn't show up on standard def tvs. This is why playing gow on ps3 shows black bars on the sides of the screen.

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=91680 -Zenfolder

This is actually a very sizable update. Additionally, trophies were added.

Lastly, GoW had stiff competition on the ps2 which probably resulted in a lower score than it deserved. Beat-em ups were also not as popular then as they are now, just look at the sheer number of high calibur action games now.

So, GoW Collection improves upon it's core strengths. It has less competition, so it is more highly valued, it is more popular, and it is more of a buy compared to other things you could buy. Plus, it has less than 10 reviews, and will most certainly end up at 91-92 range. These reasons are more than good enough to explain an overall equal if not better experience.

 

I cannot say much about the Prime series, but I've played and enjoyed each. As someone pointed out, they included achievements, but unless there is some kind of tracking, then it's kind of pointless. Achievements are already pretty pointless, but untracked ones are even more pointless. They only add some replay value to the game, and in some cases unlock extras for the game as well, like in Uncharted 2. Acheivements that aren't tracked, and don't unlock anything are pretty pointless.

Additionally, Prime was one of the best games on the GC. Easily within the top 3. However, with the wii, an old game with no improvement beyond play control, does not compare to the games that are currently out for it. I can easily name 5 games better than Prime on the wii.

I can't really explain the low score beyond what I wrote in the preface and this thing about trophies. I don't know much about what they added, but I do know that Prime 1 was the best in the series.

 

 



Graphic is a big part of the Score and HD results in way better Graphic. god of War Collection are 2 games for the same price with improved graphics so a little higher score is ok.

HD Games get a higher Graphic Ratement then Non HD Games thats logical and the graphic is way better then the SD Graphic even if its SD too because of more details bigger drawing distance better lighting effects better textures more Characters on Screen and better physics. Dont know if AI needs a lot of processing but if yes then it could be also a reason why the HD Consoles got a higher rating Thats why the difference is so big between Call of Duty on PS3/360 and WII. And how is it with the Online on Wii ? Havent heard good things about it that could be reasons for a higher rating. If the Wii cant make up the deficit with the Controls then its clear why it has a lower rating.

The HD Consoles have not just an edge over the WII in Terms of graphic they have also an edge in every thing which can be better if you have more Power. And online is a plus on HD Consoles too. The Consoles are the same generation so they have to be compared in every way. Nintendo choosed to have weak hardware.They have the different control style. It can be better then traditional controls but sometimes its just different. The WII score has always a minus because its last gen technique. Except of the Controls.


Infact I never cared about Score thats not a reason for me to buy a game. The only reason why I look sometimes at the Score of a game is because I want to know if its eventually trash.







Around the Network
Torillian said:
Looking at the list of reviewers between GoW Collection and Metroid Prime Trilogy only Gamefocus, Gamepro, IGN, and Game Informer have reviewed both, and only Game Informer reviewed GoW higher while IGN and Gamefocus scored Metroid Prime Trilogy higher and Gamepro gave them both 100. Your argument sucks.

This just about sums everything up.



                            

completely agree with theprof00, and graphics is objective, either its better or not, and controls is subjective, not everyone agrees that wii controls are that great, honestly most the time i prefer mouse and keyboard.



hYpnochronic said:
almcchesney said:
lol it cant be because they improved framerate and added trophies could it...
and thats all the Metroid collection was was a port of a really good game, to make it a well really good game with wii controls that still looked like the last game....
I dont like the wii controls, sure its easier sometime but give me my damn button to quick change weapons.

Actually Metroid Prime Trilogy added achievements too.  The loading times have also been drastically reduced, and you're getting THREE games for the price of one.  As far weapons go, it's far quicker to change weapons on Trilogy than in the old games.  Adding pointer functionality changes the actual GAMEPLAY for the better, whereas just changing graphics adds nothing to the game itself.  I think that's what the OP is saying.

Although comparably minor, graphics were also touched up on Prime 1-2 in the Trilogy.  Textures especially (they're all higher res now) and widescreen was added, though some baked effects (reflections) were also taken out.  Other aspects like the HUD were tweaked too, to fit with the new (superior) control scheme.



Its obvious it sold better because you do not have to disc-swap, jeez get your facts straight



Well I'd be biased against games not in HD. SD games look terrible on my 67 inch 1080p TV.

Notice how all the games you listed are still AAA...however they do deserve to lose points for looking blury.