i was never gonna get the game anyways.

Read it and weep Onimusha.

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/939633.asp

Also On: X360 (72.8%) | PS3 (71.6%) | PSP (70.7%) | WII (70.7%) | PS2 (70.4%) | DS (55.8%)

And I find it hilarious that you suggest that third party games have been of a generally lower quality than past generations. Like you would even know. Good luck with The Conduit and Mushroom Men!

Argueing about which system has the best games i can understand, but about who has the slightly worse version of what generally seems to be regarded as a crap game is just dumb. You're either going to buy it on the system you have or not and if you are you're obviously not paying much heed to the reviews. It's not like this game is going to move systems.

Saying that this generation is somehow bad when it comes to third parties really shows that you only own a wii. 360&Ps3 are getting a lot of good games. According to metacritic, wii got the worst version of SW:FU. You were the one crying that hd-versions get better scores because reviewers are biased. How sad is that.

Now you are ranting about devs not using a lot of resources on wii games. Why should they? As the sales show you, wii users accept lesser quality games than ps360 owners. I can prove that! 

Wii top sellers and their metacritic ranking:

Wii play: 58 *

Mkwii: 82 *

Wii fit: 80 *

Smg: 97 *

SSBB: 94 *

Mario&sonic: 67 *

Mario party 8: 62 *

See? Do the same for ps360 and tell me who accepts lesser quality. Oh, I only used wii play on this example because nintendo-fans demand it should be counted as a game. * marks a game which includes either mario or "wii" on the title. Oh wait, those were all nintendo titles. I guess I will have to take top 3 third parties in account:

Guitar hero 3: 86

Carnival games: 56

sonic&secret rings: 69

Now I know there will be excuses like reviewers are bias and "omg teh game is better since it sells".  I don't care if people buy shovelware, selling a lot does not make a game good.

And yes, I don't care about this game at all. It sucks on 360, it sucks on ps3 and it sucks on wii. As most of that kind of licensed crap do.

disclaimer:

This was a response to Onimusha:s previous post, with the exact same style but backed up with at least some kind of proof. He did not get banned so I think this is acceptable.

Bwahahahahaha! Oh OkeyDokey. You try so hard.

It's as if you would think the most succesfful consoles got the most sovelware or something? I think IGN and Gamespot are far more telling than the metacritic sum, though if your point stood with any confidence people wouldn't be making excuses in defense of the reviewing system in saying different people rate the different versions. Again, why would I care one way or another that the Wii got the better or worse version of a bad game, the point of my coments above were to point out there is no point in worrying over the matter and that the game sucks regardless. I suppose you people would think Alone in the Dark was still worth buying so long as the HD version was somehow better than the Wii version too? Lol!

And only by ignoring the bulk of my post could you even hope to mount the most futile of attempts at discrediting me. Don't worry, I'll be enjoy my Conduit, Madworld, Fatal Frame 4, House of the Dead: Overkill, Disaster: Day of Crisis and Cursed Mountain while you enjoy your Mercenaries 2, Haze, Too Human, Infinite Undiscovery and Viva Piniata Trouble in Paradise.

Oh you do try so hard.

Hehehehe, I love it when our less biased members try their hand at logic.

1. You're using the very reviewing system that is not only clearly broken but disowned by HD gamers above in defense of the HD consoles as your sole defense for the Wii accepting lower quality games. Perhaps you should try establishing the validity and merit of the video game industry's reviewing standard before trying to use it as your sole and only proof that the Wii whatever variation of the claim, the Wii gets worse games, is true. We've had how many threads and news threads confronting the sheer brokeness and self-admitted biases of the industry's reviewing system and you HD fanboys still use it as your saving grace everytime someone challenges the one saving grace you all hold dear when it comes to your precious Hd consoles, that you still get the better games.

2. You offer no comparison for your metacritic observations, you simply just offer Wii games and thier scores with no standard or context to consider them against, not even 360/PS3 games. And for that matter what games on the HD consoles might you offer as apt comparisons in that context? You can't, you've created a comparison that can't be made, at least Okey Dokey was observant enough to try and compare the console's sum scores as a whole. Your cited examples mean virtually nothing.

3. By your use of Metacritic scores to assert this rather open ended claim of yours you must also insist that the Wii has better games than the PS2 as you can clearly see from Okey Dokey's response that's what metacritic scores suggest. Unless you're willing to accept the fact that Wii has better games than the PS2 you can't make the statement that the 360/PS3 have better games than the Wii.

If you had any argument in the slightest worth considering you wouldn't be force to attack this one point (so poorly and haphazardly might I add) while ignoring the sheer bulk of everything else I've presented in the post you're responding too. At least Okey Dokey was focused enough to construct the most rudimentary of counter arguments, you're all over the place in this sorry attempt at rationale and "damning evidence" against the Wii.

Now here it comes, "reviewers are bias, nintendo rlz".

2) The point was to show you what kind of "quality" sells on wii, I bet you can take a look at top selling 360/ps3 games. But if you can't, here you go (top 5 selling 360 games):

Halo 3: 94

Cod 4: 94

Gta 4: 98

GoW: 94

Forza2: 90

I could keep going, but I guess you get the point. You could also try to find a 360 million seller with below 70 rating on metacritic?

3) Wat? Are you talking about this post?

http://vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=1251218

According to that, wii version of SW:FU is better than ps2 version. I guess I can agree with that.

You have represented something? Just your own thoughts as far as I can see. Mostly ranting, that is.

edit:

Funny, comon folk -> less biased.

Again you miss the point.

Simply showing high selling games and their metacritic raitings without context is still meaningless. And you're still trying to desperately ignore the fact that your argument is hopelessly dependent on this reviewing system that is admitted to being broken. There is no criteria or credentials to being a video game reviewer and most reviewers admit the HD consoles make the kind of games they personally prefer and admit to not being able to accurately score casual games and Wii titles by the pre-existing industry standard.

The fact you would even condone a system that gives such a mediocre game as Halo3 a 94 and any game such as GTA4 a 11/10 shows your willingness to accept a system you know is horribly flawed and biased. The point I was raising is that even in this broken and biased system some of the biggest game reviewers still gave the Wii version the higher score! What does that honestly tell you about the Force Unleashed then?

If you can't adress the whole sum of my response, then what point are you trying to make? More importantly, whose opinion is the one saying those are the better games? Your argument is so hopeless dependent on this broken reviewing system.

Stop hiding behind "the broken review system".
You said ps360 owners have a lower standards for quality without even backing up your claim.
He showed evidence that Wii owners are infact the ones who buy shit in bulk.

Now, I got up to "sovelware" and realised you hadn't edited your previous post yet. Are you really gonna give up that easily? I wanted and arguement!

 I have no clue what you're talking about in editing posts. You really are trying too hard OkeyDokey.

Do you really have any means of showing the Wii gamers buy crappy games in bulk without using the Review System? I didn't think so. All you have is that reviewer system, nothing else. And as long as that system tells you what you want to hear, you'll gladly swallow whatever it gives you.

At the very best you can only say I have no more evidence to my claim than you do yours, other than that, if you're really willing to trust a system that gave Halo 3 a 94 and GTA4 a 11/10, well then I think that speaks for itself.

Tell me, did it make you angry that I was able to come up with a better list of upcoming third party titles for the Wii than the HD consoles were getting? I really hope you have something better than spellcheck lined up for our next exchange. ;)