Why? It's been discussed before, but it has happened again and I'm confused. I was looking at gamerankings when I came across Resident Evil 4 Wii edition. All I've been hearing is that this is the "definitive" version because the controls actually improve the gameplay. But....a review from Eurogamer who gave it a 7/10 says, "Because it doesn't feature an improved control scheme, it features the opposite: a worse control scheme." Then in complete contrast CVG UK says, "The pointer calibration here is so sharp you could cut yourself with it: even compared with Nintendo's own gunwork in the Duck Hunt-styled passage of Wii Play, it feels like there's greater precision in Capcom's handiwork." They gave it 93% out of 100.
I personally think that in this case, Eurogamer is just gonna be one of those sites that gives a low review to a game that is going to receive an overall positive reception granted 7/10 is not that bad. But his whole point was the game is still good for what it is, but it is now not as good because of the Wii controls. From previews, I understand that the controls are extremely precise, so my guess is that the reviewer from Eurogamer must REALLY suck at the game if he couldn't aim good. I mean the guy even when on to say, "And if you can get your head round the game's appearance." I mean come on, we know the game is dated, but it's not like even now re4 is so ugly it's hard to look at. It's sad that there are still retards who's views on games are still used. Jack Thompson anyone.
