VG Chartz are Nintendo fanboys?

[hsrob]

psrock said:

ioi said:
Well we can get into a whole debate about how you review a game and what is important - I'll leave that to everyone else if you want to turn this thread into that.

I'm simply saying that we don't have a "Nintendo bias" in our reviews, we strive for a particular balance which probably penalises poor presentation / graphics to a lesser extent that other sites. This can happen within a platform as well as across different platforms.

The only thing, it's not balanced if certain aspect of today's games are penalises. We are in 2009 and closer 2010, graphics and presentation has become a big deal in most of the biggest games. It's frankly not fair to ignore it because it would hurt another console. Each game should be considered differently.

It sounds quite bias the way you said it, but after seeing COD4 on the Wii, a port, I must say a lot of developers should not get he benefit of doubt for their lack of effort on that system.

Graphics is a big part of gaming and for me once you ignore, it really hurts what reviews are suppose to be about.

Graphics are important but how important, how good do they really need to be for a given genre?  Would you agree that we already have genres where we are seeing diminishing returns, meaning that enhanced graphics have not expanded or pushed the genre beyond what was on offer last generation or the generation before? Have we sent a "best fighter ever" this generation?

I agree that in some genres graphics can be really important and can enhance the mood tremendously. In the end for me though, there is a very broad range of acceptable graphics in a game and they would have to be significantly below or above that standard before i think they should have a significant impact on the game's overall score.