| Kenryoku_Maxis said:
A lot of your counter-points seem to be bringing up specific bias certain sites have against certain genres of games. Again, it was an opinion in the first place. Based on my perception over the years of certain games seemingly getting downscored. But this has been going on since the N64 in my opinion, and was 10x worse in the PS2/XBOX/GC years. My views mostly cross over from that period. I will admit, its gotten a little better in the last 2 years on sites like IGN, but that's mostly because many of the past people at IGN left like Matt, Bozon and etc, replaced by a whole new 'Nintendo' team. ESPECIALLY Bozon, who actively stated on numerious occasions (even his reviews) that he dislikes JRPGs and 'casual' Wii games. Yet he was given the vast majority of JRPGs and 'casual' Wii games to review.... http://gonintendo.com/viewstory.php?id=113139 On the flip side, both the coverage and reviews for Wii games seem to have gotten worse on sites like Game Trailers. With games like Boy and his Blob, Muramasa and Kirby's Epic Yarn getting lower scores than the avg. And they had a pretty bad review of Sonic Colors (6.4) where its pretty evident they only played the game for like 3-4 hours at most. But again, this is just how I precieve it. Also, what you said about PS3 and Wii games getting reviewed by the same editorial team. That's not correct. At least not on sites like IGN. They have different people rating each console. And again, a lot of the games you used as examples for the PS3 side seem to show a negative bias towards some genres. Mostly JRPGs. However, on GameTrailers, Mortal Kombat got a score of 9.4. For some reason IGN game it the low score...further proving reviews are highly subjective. Just like this argument, sadly. |
If it is a specific bias against certain games, then I guess there was no Wii bias in your examples then right? You can't say Monster Hunter Tri scored low because it is on the Wii, and then just claim reviewers are biased against the whole series since the rest of the games scored lower than Tri.
You can say it's an opinion, but when you use outright lies to support your opinion you can't expect people to respect it. Like now with Gametrailers. You say that A Boy and His Blob, Muramasa, and Kirby got lower scores than average.
A Boy and His Blob
Meta: 80
GT: 85
Muramasa
Meta: 81
GT: 83
Kirby
Meta: 87
GT: 84
So, that's one for three. But is 3 points really worth getting up in arms over? I'm guessing you aren't annoyed over the seven reviewers who gave Kirby a 100. A 13 point difference is quite a bit different than 3. If it weren't for them, the average probably would be 84 or lower.
Now, to be fair, Sonic Colors did get a rather low score from GT, but let's look at one of their newest reviews.
The Conduit 2
Meta:68
GT: 79
Not the same gap as Colors, but substantial nonetheless. It also doesn't really show a systematic bias from GT. Let's look at some other recent Wii games.
De Blob 2
Meta: 78 (higher than the PS3/360 versions by the way)
GT: 84
Mario Sports Mix
Meta: 64
GT: 65
Epic Mickey
Meta: 73
GT: 82
Donkey Kong Country Returns
Meta: 87
GT: 90
I think that's probably enough to dispell the idea that GT systematically rates Wii games lower than the average. Getting back to IGN, how can you say they have been better in the past two years when you called them out (twice even!) for being one of the biased sites. You even said things were better in the first couple years of the Wii. So which is it? Is IGN good or bad? Were they good from 06-08 or from 09-now?
I'm not going to bother looking back to the N64 or Gamecube days. It is hard to take your word on what went on 10-15 years ago when your recollections of current games seems to be faulty.
This argument may be subjective in regards to the scores we would personally give games, but looking at past review scores is most certainly objective.
