| rocketpig said: I understand what you're saying but is there even a Nintendo publication that gives ratings to games? Does Nintendo Power do that? If not, I can see why they weren't included (I haven't read a Nintendo Power in almost 20 years). As for computer games stacking the deck, that's only fair given the nature of most game publications. In case you hadn't noticed, EGM, Game Informer, etc. don't give much notice to PC gaming at all. The list needed a few computer guys to balance the list a bit and IMO, they chose the most obvious publications for voting. Then they tossed in a few of the non-traditional big boys (USA Today, Yahoo, etc.) to round things out a bit. I have no problems with any of the publications they chose for the panel. |
They do. The reason they wern't included though i'd imagine is a lot of the publications have connections with each other. (For example quite a few are comcast subsidiaries.)
The real problem is though that you can't work it like that because of the inherent bias that is going to happen if you do that.
For example, say you were doing this and you took 4 fanboys, 1 Nintendo, 1 360, 1 PC and 1 PS3. The multiplatform titles are going to rule.
By "balancing" for PC they are also throwing everything out of order with the other balance.
Basically Nintendo is getting a poor shake because of lack of multi-platform games and just because it's "different". 1st party games in general get the shaft... though Nintendo did the most just do to the lack of a Nintendo only publication or two.
I mean notice that none of the actual PC games on that list are PC exclusives. As for the nontraditional guys... where there problem lies in that they nominate games like Cooking Mama. (Seriously, the guy from the LA times voted for Cooking Mama.)
The only way for a list like this to really work is basically to use Metacritic or something. (well gamerankings since metacritic weights)
