| jimmay said: I've given many examples that show everything. The facts that you can never get away from are the wii has significantly less top rated games than the 360 and the ps3 overall. Out of the top games (million sellers) the majority of wii games aren't rated as top games where as the 360 and ps3's games are. This shows that casuals are the biggest driving force behind wii sales and they don't have a clue what makes a good game. I have played most of these games and just like most things in life, the things that sell the best generally arent the best and most people have bad taste but these things don't matter to them because they are happy and that's all that matters to them. |
That is a very elitest attitude ...
As I pointed out before, in no other entertainment medium do critics use their own personal preference in genre impact their review. Currently, the Hana Motana movie is rated higher than the Bucket List even though you (an many other people) would find The Bucket List to be a more meaningful and deeper movie ...
How can Hana Montana be so highly rated in comparison to the Bucket List if the Bucket List is deeper movie? Well, the critics reviewed Hanna Montana in the context of it being a tween movie and as a tween movie they thought it was alright ... This means that their reviews have meaning to the very people who would actually watch that movie.
Why then are videogame critics reviewing Wii Sports via the same standard they review Madden by? They're two different games, targeting two different demographics which are each looking for drastically different things from their game ... If someone who is interested in Wii Sports doesn't care about an online leaderboard why should the critic take the lack of an online leaderboard as a negative thing?
