dunno001 said:
Torillian said:
adsl said:
I enjoyed Final Fantasy Crystal Bearers too and it deserves a better reviews. Since it is a Wii game the reviewers just don't like it.
Wii has already a very strong and diverse library, unique titles like FFCB, RS2, NMH2 and Just Dance keep coming, but you know that they will have bad reviews only because they aren't hd titles...
|
And all those pages and pages that reviewers wrote about the game as to why they thought it deserved the score they gave? Was that all just a front so they could mask their bias? What a bunch of BS.
|
Actually, yes, it is a front. They always compare it to what "could have been" (or in their eyes, "should" have been) on the PS3 or 360. Since the graphics aren't as good, they dock it points right there. Add in quite a few of them who whine about "the waggle", others whining about the "casualness" of its games, and the ones that just in general don't like Nintendo, and they'll skew the words however they can to trash a Wii game.
What they are not doing is reviewing for the people who care about the game. They're reviewing based on where they want to see gaming go, ie, a stagnant and slowly shrinking red ocean. Yes, there's the occasional blockbuster that makes gaming seem larger than ever, but in general, games are not selling as well as developers need, and they're going out of business as a result. But the Wii requires companies to shift how they do things- "they" meaning publishers, developers, and yes, reviewers. Rather than do that, they'll slight the Wii, trashtalk it, do what they can in hopes that someone picks up on this and decides to not get a Wii, getting something else instead. It becomes another person that they can sell the same old tricks to. All because they just don't want to change.
EDIT IN REPLY TO POST ABOVE THIS: You mention some Nintendo games as getting high scores. I'll counter that by referencing my first line- what could be on the HD systems. They know that Nintendo won't make a game for someone else. So they can't compare it to something else, and actually have to review it based on its merits. This results in the higher scores, and, for Nintendo's better games, also allows them to help perpetuate the "belief" that only Nintendo games sell on Nintendo systems, and that "we can't compete with Nintendo." Get the smaller guys to give up, go HD, and keep fueling what they want. Gotta take some lumps to get what you want; giving Nintendo's own games good scores, while usually deserving, is the easiest, and feeds another slight.
@pots555: Where is this Fragile cult? I think I need to go join it... |
I've always seen this argument, pertaining to low Wii scores. "They aren't reviewing based on what the game is meant for, but rather what 'gamers' think of the game" or something along those lines.
I propose to you this: If a developer made a game whose sole purpose was to bore you to death, should it get a 10/10 if it succeeds at that? The game is "meant" to bore you, so they should score it based on what it's "meant" to do, right?
Now, back to reality, just because a game is "meant" to do something, doesn't mean it's fun. And that's what reviewers do, the review based on how much fun they had. If they gave all the games low scores, it's because they didn't have fun with it, whether the game did what it intended to or not. Kane & Lynch is "supposed" to give me a taste of what it is to be a hired gun. The game does that....but it still sucked
