| naznatips said: Even if you wanted to leave it at the "most games above 80%," the Wii wins the 3 categories it wins at "highest rated games." The 360 will beat the PS3 in Sports though if that makes you feel better. @tarheel, the problem is that we don't in our current medium have experts who are qualified to review games objectively. An entire genre of games is persecuted by reviewers. If you want a similar example: Morally in the 1700s people would see no problems with slavery, but now that we have perspective it was clearly wrong. History can give a lot more insight than present. |
That's a poor analagy. General literary or video game criteria change much less than what's socially acceptable. Diciton, Prose, Mood, Rhetoric, Plot, etc. have all been important. Granted, their relative importance has changed, but most are judged within their time period. You don't evaluate a Romantic book from a Modernist perspective, and likewise you don't evaluate a NES game from a Dreamcast perspective. Video games have similar standards: controls, level design, story, graphics, audio, etc. While their relative values change, they're still judged by their time. My point is that time does not lead to miraculously new perspectives from which to accurately assess games. They are judged in relation to the time they were created in. Thus, judging games that are made today should be no more difficult.
