Kasz216 said:
Not really. I think you can point to a number of Wii games that were marked down in part for the system it was on. In some cases it might be anger at the wii. In most cases i'd imagine it has more to do with critics not liking motion controls or not dealing with games being different then expected. It's easy to compare a FPS to other FPS... what do you compare Wii Sports to... or Wii Fit even? Who even reviews these games? When your system is set up so that you have the reviewer who likes those types of games best reviews the game.... what do you do when the game is new? When there isn't anything like it? You don't have anybody who is biased towawrds the genre or type of game like JRPG John who's been playing ever since FF1. I don't think it's intentional, but I do think it's fair to go in expecting wii games to get lower reviews because unlike the HD systems where it's easy enough to say "this looks better then the last one" the Wii's improvements are harder to quantify, and new play mechanics... are well new. It's hard to judge a peach's quality if it's the first peach you've ever eaten. Your main instict is probably going to be to put it in the "middle" because from their you'd have plenty of room to adjust up or down as need be. |
I think all systems get fair reviews. With the wii I see a lot of reviewers letting the graphics, sound and presentation department off the hook because its wii after all. They usually call it "cute" or say graphics have "charater" and good art direction and give the game 8 or a 9 for that department.
Take no more heroes. Cell shading was done 7 years ago on the dreamcast better than that game and it chugs like crazy. But IGN says
Graphics - 8
A great cel-shaded look, fluid animations, and style to spare. Again, the open world aspects see a huge decrease in quality overall
There is no way that game is an 8, if so, GTA4 is a 32.
