CAL4M1TY said:
So what OP is trying to say is that Wii reviews should be given inflated scores because it is already known that Wii cannot compete with 360 and PS3 on a hardware level? That's a load of crap.
There's a reason why Nintendo's own first party titles (on average) are head and shoulders above everything else on the Wii, because Nintendo are making sure to cover all their bases (honestly, Super Mario Galaxy was a beautiful game, graphically and artistically. Ditto MP3).
To give Wii games a higher score for having good gameplay and crappy graphics would be as biased as giving a game like Army of Two high scores because it has good visuals but does exactly the same thing as every shooter in the past 3 years.
A Game should only be reviewed 80%+ (or whatever arbitrary value) if it is a well-rounded package. OP himself said Top Spin 3 visuals suck, therefore it is not a complete package like say Zack and Wiki or De Blob is, and should be reviewed as such.
I |
You have a point ... if only the reviewers applied that logic to all consoles. But it seems that many of them make the Wii a whipping boy for its faults and applaud the graphics over gameplay of offerings found on the HD consoles.
Now, please do not read into this that I am saying all Wii games are great or that all HD games have no value. But if you look at it, often eye candy seems to get more credit for a game (especially in a short play) than other factors. Thus, the Wii gets lower scores from some reviwers.
I won't bother to go into the game type discussion again -- but we all know that many reviewers go ga-ga for on-line FPS games and have trouble with more casual fare. That is opinion and may reflect the audiance of their reviews. But it does not necessarily make an FPS good and a casual game bad. But some reviewers seem to think that.
Mike from Morgantown
