theprof00 said:
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? |
No, its not about wanting a handicap at all in fact.
It’s about evaluating games according to what they were designed to be, rather than what hardcore elitists want them to be.
Allow me to elaborate.
Using a hardcore standard, graphics are typically weighted equally with gameplay. This is consistent with the philosophy behind traditional games in which incremental enhancements in graphics are a high priority. It’s logical to hold such games to a graphical standard of success because that is the intention of such games in the first place.
However, with certain Wii and DS games, it’s obvious that graphics are not as important. Indeed, for games such as Wii Sports, Fit, Brain Training etc, which use a very minimalistic presentation, graphics are secondary to gameplay features.
Other factors such as ease of use, interface (motion controls/touchscreen/microphone) are not acknowledged by the traditional review standard. Nonetheless these are all important factors that underly the whole philosophy behind these games.
To judge casual games according to graphics, complexity etc is holding them to a standard that they don’t aspire to. Indeed, it may be argued that Nintendo's casual titles deliberately distance themselves from traditional stereotypes. They will be disadvantaged in such a comparison because they are not trying to be hardcore games. The genius of Brain Training has nothing to do with graphics at all, yet a traditional criteria would deduct marks nonetheless.
You suggest that I claim that games like Wii Fit and Wii Sport are ‘AAA’ when I have said no such thing. What this tells me is that you’ve missed my point entirely. Why would I say they are ‘AAA’ when I’m trying to discredit the whole notion of using an ‘AAA’ standard for casual games? All I’ve said is that games like Wii Fit and Wii Sports are quality games, and when I say that I’m judging them by a standard that is consistent with what they aspire to.
Casual games are very different from traditional games, best illustrated by snobcore attempts to disregard them altogether as non-games. This is something you cannot deny. When comparing apples to oranges a rigid absolute criteria will not suffice.
Ultimately, using a rigid criteria such as metacritic is far from objective as you imply. For a start, it simply cannot remove the hardcore bias inherent in the reviewing industry. Secondly, the review system is hardly consistent and prone to hype (GTA4 being a good example of this). There is no true way to be objective here so you shouldn’t present it as such (Scientific my arse).
And c’mon, M&S @ the Olympics is better than Wii Sports??? From a hardcore perspective pehaps.
