| goldenpp72 said: Wii sports looks like crap compared to galaxy, thus its graphics deserve to get marked down, and your comment about the gameplay is terrible dude. if I made a game where the objective is to hold UP to get to the top of the screen, and it worked perfectly, it should score perfectly right? Wii sports has shallow but fun gameplay, it has no online, no unlockables, no anything. It 'works' usually (read, usually) and has few problems but doesn't actually try to do much of anything. Gears of war is a game with insane depth yet numerous problems or glitches, but it's still a better game because it does far more, even if it has more glitches or technical issues. |
The graphical style of Wii sports is spot on. It uses Miis and created a world where Miis look like they belong. Put a Mii in Mario Galaxy and it looks awkward and dumb. Not one person has ever made the complaint that the Miis look stupid when playing Wii Sports though despite the fact that Miis do, infact, look retarded.
As to your ludicruous question I would say that depends. What is your target audience for the game? What gaming experience are you trying to create with your game? Are you looking to tap into the massive market of people who want to sit and stare at their screen for a while? Do ya see the kinds of actual questions you have to ask when trying to objectively review a game?
You can't directly compare the gameplay between Halo and Final Fantasy in any way. Doing so would cause one of them to get creamed in reviews for shitty game play. So what does determine good gameplay? It would depend entirely on your audience. Wii Sports, and most mini-game compilations, are targeted at party atmospheres. Not the lan party scene where a bunch of gamers hook up their rigs and get down (which is incredibly fun) but when a bunch of people just happen to be over. It was designed so anyone could pick-up and play it reasonably well and have a lot of fun with it. Wii Sports accomplished that easily. The game play is only shallow if you are determined to spend 3,000 hours trying to master it so no one can possibly beat you. There is plenty enough depth to the game to keep you playing and improving for quite a while.
Your finally comparison is exactly what is wrong with game reviews. You can't put those two games side by side and say which is honestly better. The games are as different as night and day. They are apples and oranges. You say Gears of War is better, but I would rather play Chicken Shoot non-stop for 12 hours than play 5 minutes of Gears of War. I simply cannot stand first or third person shooters with a very very few rare exceptions. Even a game as masterfully well made as Resident Evil 4 cannot make me enjoy them. Game reviewers should be taking that into consideration and they just aren't currently. You have to consider intended audience, and how well it compares to other games in its genre, but not the genre itself.
