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

Nintendo - Biased reviews - View Post

Dno on 24 June 2009
Edit Thread
senortaco said:
Dno said:
senortaco said:
masterb8tr said:
Phoenix_Wiight said:
Yea, the more people that become idiotic "core" gamers, the more biased reviews will start to appear.

HD games, for the most part, on MOST websites get +5 points higher than Wii games just because they're HD.

It's balls annoying, but we gotta live with it.


well if a game has stunning visuals i think its fair to give it 5 points higher, in comparison to a game that looks like shit.


really this is suppose to ADD too the discussion? ...REALLY?


people have to get over that other people LOVE looking at graphics. Fact: graphics do add to the realism of the game which can (in some games) add to the fun.

Some people love graphics that the wii can not provide and in the graphics part of the review it SHOULD get a low score because people can purchase a better game with better graphics on another console.

Why should mario galaxy get the same score  in the graphics side as ratchet is crazy and maskes no sense. HD graphics do help games get higher scores because it takes time to make it look real and you have that wow factor in games like killzone2 , mass effect, ff13, uncharted etc. these games should NOT have the same score as wii games in the graphics part of the review.

A reviewer has to score, and compare the game to what is out there already. if i own killzone 2 then why would i want the next new FPS on wii? thats what the reviews scores are trying to say.

Also all reviewers rate Nintendo games basied anyway so its not just the HD consoles.

My thing is if you're comparing APPLES to APPLES then I'm fine with it. But when reviews compare High def graphics to Standard def who are the reviewers fooling? It's assumption that the person reading the review would have no clue that HD SHOULD look better then STD.

...To me a professional review should be Apples to Apples. Take the PS3 and KZ2, it was stunning on PS3, and comparing it to the previous visual stunnas' on the PS3 it can be argued that it's the best. I don't need the reviewer comparing it to what the 360 can do, PLENTY of fans of the system will do that. Thats really all I ask...

*whispers* good post Dno, thats the meat of the discussion I'm talkin bout...

See i love this you said what you think and why you think it should be that way... Samus Aran states that because he doesnt like it that means reviewers should not like it either. and that is stupid. i liked killzone 2 better then metriod because it looks good plus 32 player online matches trophies et.. the replay value is SKY HIGH compared to metriod. i like HD graphics and i want a game that looks good. And when i read a reveiw i want a reveiwer to tell me "hey this game looks like crap compared to W/E esle is on the market" or "this game looks awesome"

now to answer what you stated about apples vs apples i agree and you are right. But what you fail to see is that the wii is competeing for my time on my TV.. so is the PS3 and so is the 360... So i want to play the best things i can. SO he IS comparing apples to apples as the wii ps3 360 are all gaming systems. thats at least how i see it.