By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
irstupid on 11 December 2008
Edit Thread
theprof00 said:
Xponent said:
The difference here is that what you define as quality is according to a criteria outlined by a small elite, whether they be gaming reviewers, film reviwers etc.

What I am saying however, is that quality, being an inherently subjective measure, is in the eye of the beholder. If the majority disagree with an elite minority in a subjective evaluation, that does not make them wrong.

If you want to define quality according to metacritic, then fine, but it will clearly disadvantage Wii and DS, because some of the gaming elite won’t even accept casual titles as games at all.

But to define quality according to sales is equally valid, and more representative. You can’t deny that it is more representative, and its all subjective after all.

What the problem is is that you want a handicap. There are casual wii titles that are AAA on MC.

The criteria for a game to be AAA is first and foremost, this? Could the game possibly have been improved without using more space. That is, was is tested enough to the point where a tester couldn't find anything to improve on?

Mario and Sonic at the Olympics completely outdoes Wii sports and yet you claim that wii sports is the triple a game. If anything it should be S&M that is included, not wii sports. But then again M&S could have been better. The problem you run into is that later on in the lifetime of the console, better games come out, and if you've given wii sports a 92, then what do you give a game like de blob? SMG? conduit?

I think that is exactly the problem with the HD consoles not the Wii.  Sure we may complain about the ratings our games get, but heck they are probably the best review the game should get and it a good review.  But thought a horrible review cause of every HD game getting 85 or higher minimum just cause it is pretty.

 

And just like you said should Mario Party 9 get a higher grade cause it is better graphics (slightly) and an improvement on th eolder one slightly.  Has a lot of the same games just a bit different and then many new ones.  But overall same game right?  But wait isn't the Wii one like compeltely different cause of the fact of the wiimote and stuff.  I dont' know, I haven't played it.  But would be safe guess you use it to make the games funner.

 

Yet now lets look at Gears of War 2.  Or Halo 3.  Now tell me are these games just so much better than the earlier games, or is it just like you said you rated the previous ones so high and that these games have slightly more added or something, BUT MOST IMPORTANT they have better graphics, so then will get a better score.

 

Heck I"m almost glad the review system is broken.  I am buying a game then for my Wii based of how good the game is and not off graphics at all.  I've bought plenty of very pretty games and found and find myself usually always dissapointed thinking how the hell did this game get a 92.  And also bought plenty of roughly 70-75's and thinking holy shit this game is awesome.