NO.... but then i feel attaching any score to the reviews is BS

Presentation covers graphics and audio (both tech and style), plus all non-gameplay-related interface features/issues as well as narrative and other design aspects.

^ that seems to be a lot of stuff for one category, it'd be nice to see how each of those sections are rated instead of being all  just one score

We've already had the argument, this is what was decided on and I'll be damned if we're going to run through all that again (even though I lost). No offense to those who want more categories, but we have already had this debate ad nauseum and don't think we'll revisit it anytime soon.

If you want to know about specific stuff, read the text. :P

^I want numbers lol

Anyway looks like it's just me who wants it, and I guess everyone already wen't through this before so n/m then

I wonder how technical details are handled.

Should two games with relatively equivalent (and great) soundtracks be rated the same if one has normal audio and the other has full surround?

Are Wii games held to the same graphical standards as HD games or do they get their own "Well it looks good for the Wii" category of graphics?

Does vgC actually have a 10 point scale or is it a 5 point scale + 5?

graphics are compared within games on the console. So a Wii game's graphics score is based on other Wii games.

I don't think we take full surround into account, technical presentation usually is a place for framerate issues and bugs of any kind.

For your last question, no we are not Edge, we use numbers like most other sites, it that means a 5 point scale +5 then sure. The average as I see it is 7.0 so I do it like the American grading system I guess.

Bleh.

You should.  The effort put into surround sound should be rewarded.  Otherwise you're just saying to developers "Okay, all that work you put into a great surround sound setup... worthless."  Full high quality surround should be rewarded.  Developers who don't put as much effort into it should be penalized IMO.

I hate that because in marginalizes everything under 6 plus it basically forces you to use decimals instead of actual numbers because you're wasting half your grading spectrum on numbers that will almost never be used.  I miss Profcrab's joke post rating where it was actually a 10 point scale attached to a 9 (9.1...10.0).

None of us have surround sound systems so that point is kind of wasted on us. :p It'd be mentioned in the text but probably wouldn't affect the score very much, if it all.

What value we set our average at doesn't really matter, since even if it was 5 you'd just say we were marginalizing everything under 4. Putting our system too far outside the accepted norms just hurts us from a business standpoint without offering any real benefits (since most people want it this way).

And why do you have a problem rating Wii games on Wii standards? Instead you want to give every game a zero since they'll all suck compared to games 100 years from now?

Clearly you're just a contrarian and have always had problems with reviews everywhere, as this is not the first time you've made comments like this.