| jimmay said: Well if you truely believe that you can't compare wii's graphics, sound, game options, game length, online features, a.i., gameplay, basically anything that makes a game to that of the x360 and the ps3 then you sure as hell can't compare the sales of the wii to the x360 and ps3 as you claim they are two very different things with two very different sets of standards. So obviously any thread that now comes up in some way comparing the wii's sales to that of the x360 and ps3 you're going to jump in and tell everybody they can't do that because the wii is of a different standard.....because if you didn't then that would make you a hypocrite, and you're not a hypocrite are you? |
Your argument makes absolutely no sense given my post ...
Review scores have never (EVER) been accurate across platforms being that a game which has 'Great Graphics' for the Nintendo DS is quite a bit different than a game that has 'Great Graphics' on the PS3; only a fool would argue that if a game was directly ported from the Nintendo DS to the PS3 that it should maintain the same graphics score. Reviewers have (historically) always considered the platform of release when reviewing games, and even PS2 games were reviewed based on the graphical/sound standards of the PS2 and not the graphical/sound standards of the XBox.
You question you always seem to be dodging is "If in every other critical medium the reviewers take into consideration the genre a product is released in when reviewing it, why should videogame reviewers hold all games to the standard which is important in a small selection of generes?" ... No one is saying that you should automatically give any game a higher score, but if you're reviewing a game and talking about how well crafted and enjoyable it is why shouldn't it get an appropriately high score if it contains all the elements people expect from the genre?
