Exclusive: Critics Admit To Lowering Scores For Attention.

[DanneSandin]

ryuzaki57 said:

curl-6 said:

Maybe because reviewers don't assess games solely on graphics?

Yes, but PS4/Vita games never get credits for having top graphics. 3DS games aren't penalised for having 10-year old graphics. That's not normal, gamers derserve the best tech and journalists deny that by being soft on Nintendo games.

Furthermore, gameplay, story, etc. are very subjective aspects and can be manipulated easily. 

I think you have to differentiate between GRAPHICS and ART STYLE, because if there's something Nintendo are good at it's art style. Graphics are really all about how many polygons you can squeeze in and stucff like that, the technical stuff. Art style is what makes a game look GOOD. Just take a look at Zelda WW; released in... 2001? It STILL looks better that quite a lot of early X360/PS3 games! Because it used its art style VERY successfully. So graphics aren't all that important, the LOOK and the FEEL of a game is much more important. And Nintendo does that part very well, therefore they don't get points taken off the score. Just look at Shovel Knight; AWFUL graphics compared to The Order 1886, but the ART STYLE serves the rest of the game so well it doesn't matter. Or look at Tearaway; that art style is perfect for that game!