sinha said: As far as your counterpoint about the PC, I actually think that makes sense. There are certain multiplatform games that are for 360 and PS3 and also PC, for example many FPS and RTS games, and those console versions should be judged against how those games look and how those games play on the PC. And often times they do both far better on the PC. And often times people realize this and choose to buy those games on the PC rather than the 360 or PS3. This happens all the time with multiplatform FPS and RTS games. You present that like it's some terrible result of following my rationale to its logical conclusion, but I think that's completely reasonable and that it happens all the time, and people choose to go with PC versions all the time if their PC can handle it. Of course there are still other differences between PC and PS2, in terms of whether Vgchartz should be listing hardware sales or not, it makes sense for PS2 at least at this point, in my opinion, for the reasons stated above.

I chose to highlight this section because I think it is the key to the divergence here. You say that people choose to go with the PC versions, which is vastly different than saying all PC versions should be given higher ratings by reviewers. I agree, as a consumer, choosing the PC version because it is graphically superior is reasonable: rating all PC games with higher review scores because they are consistently superior in the graphical department (This divide will become increasingly noticeable within a year or two, of course) is another issue entirely and is not appropriate.

The best analogy I can think of would be restaraunt criticism. There was a time when food critics did indeed review restaraunts purely on the exquisite nature of their cooking; this meant, by definition, that a burger joint could never possibly compete with a "fancy" restaraunt, even if the "fancy" restaraunt was thoroughly mediocre and the burger joint served the best burgers in the world. This obviously was inappropriate, as people do not go to burger joints expecting exquisite food; furthermore, the logical conclusion of such reviews would be that a person should eat at "fancy" restaraunts at all times, which is not reflective of public desire. In the last 40 years, criticism has changed to reflect this, and now a great burger joint can reasonably compete with more refined establishments.

Now, if a person wants more exquisite meals, and chooses to go to the finer restaraunt because it offers the food they want, then that is perfectly reasonable. They can choose to do so -- but these consumer preferences shouldn't affect review scores. Similarly, if someone cares deeply about graphics, then it is entirely reasonable to forsake all consoles for nothing but a 5000+ dollar computer that you constantly spend money upgrading. That's totally fine, if a consumer so wishes -- it just shouldn't affect review scores.

Your suggestion that people will be confused by the graphical scoring of the Wii/PS3 is very much like suggesting that someone won't understand a food critic scoring a burger joint a 9 and a 100-dollar-meal joint an 8; obviously, these are reviewed with different expectations and tastes. 

I mean ,the 06 editions for both PS3 and 360 did run at 30Fps and scored 8.7 and 8.5 but this year edition is improved ,runs at 30FPSbut receives a whole point lower ?Do they imply this year edition is worse than last year one ?

I would agree more with Gamespots and 1Up (never believed I would say this !) that are only cutting the PS3 score by 0.5 points ..

1Up

360 ...9
PS3 ....8.5

@EVERYONE COMPLAINING ABOUT WII GFX GETTING HIGHER SCORE THAN THE PS3.

Ok, the PS3 review is made for PS3 owners who want to know whether to buy this or not, the Wii review is the same for the Wii owners. This is the main purpose of reviews, am I correct?
Now Wii owners arent really going to give a shit about whether their version looks worse than the PS3 version, it doesnt matter to them. What does matter is how it looks in comparison to other Wii games on the market. Thus it gets a graphics score relative to other Wii games on the market.
Same thing for the PS3, they dont want their graphics compared to the graphics of the Wii in reviews, they want to know whether it looks good for a PS3 game.

For example a PS3 game with shitty graphics for a PS3 game shouldnt get a 9.0/10.0 'Because its better than Wii graphics', nor a Wii game be marked down to a 5.0/10.0 'Because it doesnt look as good as a PS3 game'. The games should be and are marked relative to the other games on the console they are made on.

@Diomedes. If a game from last year was released this year it would score much lower, gaming moves on.

Rath said: @EVERYONE COMPLAINING ABOUT WII GFX GETTING HIGHER SCORE THAN THE PS3. Ok, the PS3 review is made for PS3 owners who want to know whether to buy this or not, the Wii review is the same for the Wii owners. This is the main purpose of reviews, am I correct? Now Wii owners arent really going to give a shit about whether their version looks worse than the PS3 version, it doesnt matter to them. What does matter is how it looks in comparison to other Wii games on the market. Thus it gets a graphics score relative to other Wii games on the market. Same thing for the PS3, they dont want their graphics compared to the graphics of the Wii in reviews, they want to know whether it looks good for a PS3 game.

For those reading my last post: this is precisely the same point I just made above in my restaraunt analogy, but this is more aptly put.

"Next gen" is an artificial construct applied by marketing people and adopted by all-to-eager consumers. The suggestion that "Next gen" has some tangible value and that every "next gen" system should be judged by identical standards is absurd: in reality, the only thing "next gen" is decided by is marketing, and that's what separates the now-dying PS2 from the Wii, 360 and PS3. The PS2's support (from both first and third party) is drying up rapidly; the Wii's support is increasing at a similar pace, and the 360 and PS3 as well. Marketing and support is what makes something "next gen", not graphics.

I just want to add my agreement to Rath and Bodhesatva.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to compare the versions between consoles. This is both interesting and valuable information, but it shouldn't impact the scores which are primarily to rank games within a console.

Bodhesatva said: I chose to highlight this section because I think it is the key to the divergence here. You say that people choose to go with the PC versions, which is vastly different than saying all PC versions should be given higher ratings by reviewers. I agree, as a consumer, choosing the PC version because it is graphically superior is reasonable: rating all PC games with higher review scores because they are consistently superior in the graphical department (This divide will become increasingly noticeable within a year or two, of course) is another issue entirely and is not appropriate. The best analogy I can think of would be restaraunt criticism. There was a time when food critics did indeed review restaraunts purely on the exquisite nature of their cooking; this meant, by definition, that a burger joint could never possibly compete with a "fancy" restaraunt, even if the "fancy" restaraunt was thoroughly mediocre and the burger joint served the best burgers in the world. This obviously was inappropriate, as people do not go to burger joints expecting exquisite food; furthermore, the logical conclusion of such reviews would be that a person should eat at "fancy" restaraunts at all times, which is not reflective of public desire. In the last 40 years, criticism has changed to reflect this, and now a great burger joint can reasonably compete with more refined establishments. Now, if a person wants more exquisite meals, and chooses to go to the finer restaraunt because it offers the food they want, then that is perfectly reasonable. They can choose to do so -- but these consumer preferences shouldn't affect review scores. Similarly, if someone cares deeply about graphics, then it is entirely reasonable to forsake all consoles for nothing but a 5000+ dollar computer that you constantly spend money upgrading. That's totally fine, if a consumer so wishes -- it just shouldn't affect review scores. Your suggestion that people will be confused by the graphical scoring of the Wii/PS3 is very much like suggesting that someone won't understand a food critic scoring a burger joint a 9 and a 100-dollar-meal joint an 8; obviously, these are reviewed with different expectations and tastes.

 

[The PC / console thing: if there is a noticeable difference in the graphics in a year or two between the same game on a PC and on a console, I think the consumer is best served if game reviewers point out that difference. That way the consumer has the best information available to make an educated buying decision between nearly identical products that are directly competing against each other. I'm not sure why I'd think otherwise just because I may own a 360 and those games will eventually look much better on the PC, my only desire is to see objective analysis by reviewers that provides accurate information for consumers.]

Your food analogy: The fancy restaurant and the burger joint are not competing against each other. The fancy restaurant is competing against other fancy restaurants and the burger joint is competing against other burger joints. There are three game consoles, Madden is being released on all three of them. Madden is like the food in that analogy. It's an almost identical food product being served for a very similar price at three similar restaurants at the exact same time.

The point I have made three times now is that the Wii, 360 and PS3 versions of Madden are competing with each other. Madden players will look to move to the next generation of consoles, see all three reviews, and may buy the Wii over the PS3 and 360 based on these IGN reviews. They may choose the Wii over the PS3 based on the higher review score and the Wii over the 360 because the scores are similar and the Wii hardware is less expensive.

Competition and the Vgchartz front page: Wii, 360 and PS3 hardware sales are all listed together, and the DS and PSP are listed together. Do you think those are just random groupings or is it because those products are in competition with each other?

The graphical scoring between the Wii and PS3 is nothing like choosing a meal. We all eat thee times a day, and most people eat out frequently. Even if an almost identical burger at three burger joints gets rated on different scales for some bizarre reason ("burger X is great compared to the typical McDonalds burger but lousy compared to the typical Burger King burger"), consumers can try it, decide for themselves, and eat somewhere else the next time they want a burger if they disagree with the reviews. If some casual Madden gamer who otherwise doesn't pay attention to video games is only going to buy one console per generation to play Madden, they may hop on to some big gaming site (IGN) and choose one console over another based on the Madden reviews, and that's the only restaurant they can buy their favorite burger at for the next six years!

everyone needs to calm down.

The point of the reviews are to compare multiple games on a system. Using scores to compare games across systems is absurd, as it just doesn't work. It's not fair to mark EVERY Wii game down for graphics, that's ridiculous. Just because the PS3 and Xbox360 can do better, does not mean that suddenly graphics scores should be maxed at 5 for the Wii.

The only other option is to mark down the graphics only for multiplatform games that look better on other platforms, which is completely ridiculous. The easy solution is to just not compare ratings on graphics directly between the PS3/360 and the Wii. Just remember that a games with 9 for graphics on the Wii looks better than most Wii games, and stop whining. It's not going to make the PS3 version any worse, as I doubt anyone is going to say "The Wii version got a higher graphics score, it must look better than the PS3 version."

sinha said: Bodhesatva said: I chose to highlight this section because I think it is the key to the divergence here. You say that people choose to go with the PC versions, which is vastly different than saying all PC versions should be given higher ratings by reviewers. I agree, as a consumer, choosing the PC version because it is graphically superior is reasonable: rating all PC games with higher review scores because they are consistently superior in the graphical department (This divide will become increasingly noticeable within a year or two, of course) is another issue entirely and is not appropriate. The best analogy I can think of would be restaraunt criticism. There was a time when food critics did indeed review restaraunts purely on the exquisite nature of their cooking; this meant, by definition, that a burger joint could never possibly compete with a "fancy" restaraunt, even if the "fancy" restaraunt was thoroughly mediocre and the burger joint served the best burgers in the world. This obviously was inappropriate, as people do not go to burger joints expecting exquisite food; furthermore, the logical conclusion of such reviews would be that a person should eat at "fancy" restaraunts at all times, which is not reflective of public desire. In the last 40 years, criticism has changed to reflect this, and now a great burger joint can reasonably compete with more refined establishments. Now, if a person wants more exquisite meals, and chooses to go to the finer restaraunt because it offers the food they want, then that is perfectly reasonable. They can choose to do so -- but these consumer preferences shouldn't affect review scores. Similarly, if someone cares deeply about graphics, then it is entirely reasonable to forsake all consoles for nothing but a 5000+ dollar computer that you constantly spend money upgrading. That's totally fine, if a consumer so wishes -- it just shouldn't affect review scores. Your suggestion that people will be confused by the graphical scoring of the Wii/PS3 is very much like suggesting that someone won't understand a food critic scoring a burger joint a 9 and a 100-dollar-meal joint an 8; obviously, these are reviewed with different expectations and tastes.   [The PC / console thing: if there is a noticeable difference in the graphics in a year or two between the same game on a PC and on a console, I think the consumer is best served if game reviewers point out that difference. That way the consumer has the best information available to make an educated buying decision between nearly identical products that are directly competing against each other. I'm not sure why I'd think otherwise just because I may own a 360 and those games will eventually look much better on the PC, my only desire is to see objective analysis by reviewers that provides accurate information for consumers.] Your food analogy: The fancy restaurant and the burger joint are not competing against each other. The fancy restaurant is competing against other fancy restaurants and the burger joint is competing against other burger joints. There are three game consoles, Madden is being released on all three of them. Madden is like the food in that analogy. It's an almost identical food product being served for a very similar price at three restaurants at the exact same time. The point I have made three times now is that the Wii, 360 and PS3 versions of Madden are competing with each other. Madden players will look to move to the next generation of consoles, see all three reviews, and may buy the Wii over the PS3 and 360 based on these IGN reviews. They may choose the Wii over the PS3 based on the higher review score and the Wii over the 360 because the scores are similar and the Wii hardware is less expensive.

You've already made this point three times now, and we've already responded at least five times.

The Maddens are not competing against each other, they are competing against other games on the same console. You don't make up the rules of review, Sinha. That is how it's done. The suggestion that people will be confused by the Wii/PS3 scores is exactly the same as saying people will be confused by a critic rating a Burger Joint above a Fancy Restaraunt.  

The goal of game reviews is not -- and should not be -- to decide which console to buy for any reader. The goal is to give a prospective purchaser of the game an idea of its value relative to other products in that same market.  

 

Bodhesatva said: You've already made this point three times now, and we've already responded at least five times. The Maddens are not competing against each other, they are competing against other games on the same console. You don't make up the rules of review, Sinha. That is how it's done. The suggestion that people will be confused by the Wii/PS3 scores is exactly the same as saying people will be confused by a critic rating a Burger Joint above a Fancy Restaraunt. The goal of game reviews is not -- and should not be -- to decide which console to buy for any reader. The goal is to give a prospective purchaser of the game an idea of its value relative to other products in that same market.

The three Madden games are not competing against each other??

They're competing against other games on the same console?? So Madden Wii is competing against Zelda and Wii Sports? Madden 360 is competing against Gears of War and Dead Rising? Madden PS3 is competing against Motorstorm and Resistance?

Your burger joint / fancy restaurant analogy still doesn't make any sense: It's an almost identical food product being served for a very similar price at three similar restaurants at the exact same time.

 

You say I don't understand reviews, and maybe I don't (although I think I do). But based on your comments above I would say it's clear you don't understand market economics or Madden players who buy a console just to play Madden.

I read all three reviews and based on the scores I think they did compare against them selfs and the wii version is simply a better game than the PS3 version. It has several features not in the PS3 version, and costs less. It's funny how some people are in utter denial that a game could be better on the wii than another console. It's clear the EA spent more time developing the wii version than the PS3 version. Get over it.