I don’t think it should have its own score b/c it’s a moot point---what might be a ten here is not a ten there tye of thing


If game a is a ten b/c of this then that mean game b cant be a ten b/c it does not have this

Two great example are that wii game , the demon blade one and the ps3 game KZ2—both are fantastic looking games but since demon blade is more animated some people might say its not a nice looking as KZ 2 since KZ2 has more real looking graphics and on the flip side some one might say that Kz2 art style is not even close to demon blade and therefore its graphics are less

But if you rate it from over all standpoint you can get a better picture of the games presentation

After all there is more to graphics then most people consider

The best way to look at it is like this

graphics =art design , polygon count, textures, lighting, and random details

so in reality graphics = presentation

So none of the reviewers actually have it?

Going along with other websites is really the only valid argument to keeping it.  I suppose vgChartz eventually wants to be on metacritic.

I think it's fair to compare graphics across all systems in each generation.  I wouldn't pit the NES against the 360 in graphics but the Wii is a fair subject for it.  Not doing so is just giving the Wii a free pass for weaker graphics.  If you want to do that then do so but understand that is exactly what you are doing.

I dislike numeric reviews in general.  It's a flawed system where the numbers have no real meaning in themselves as each individual interprets them differently which leads to lots of stupid arguments.  I suppose vgChartz has no aspirations outside of being just another random review number generator.

We tried a letter system where the letters had real meanings in and of themselves, no one liked it 'cause no one knew what they meant. Whether you like the current system or not, everyone pretty much knows what it means by now.

Comparing graphics that way is arbitrary, and quite frankly, stupid. We review games for their target audience. We're not reviewing Wii games for 360 owners or vice-versa. I would no more mark down a great-looking Wii game for not being in HD than I would a great dual-analog first-person shooter for not having mouse/IR aiming. You can't mix your standards like that.

Besides, PC would always win those comparisons. ;)

I liked it!

A non-number system is better, and I prefer the letter system the best.

I do understand that a numbered system gives the website a chance at being on GameRankings and Metacritic someday.  That exposure would be nice, but I just hate the currently accepted system.  The way it is used is like the letter system anyway (7=C=Average).

The current review system is fine. I think the three current categories do a good job of representing equally important game attributes. The balance is good.

Graphics are part of Presentation, and not important enough to be broken out into their own category.

The only stupid thing here is the creation of yet another useless rating system of random numbers where you ignore the entire other areas of the industry in reviews.  I guess the thing that bugs me the most is that not taking other platforms into consideration means that a 7 rated Wii game is not equal to a 7 rated 360 game which is not equal to a 7 rated PS3 game and when you have absolute categories, not being able to compare absolutely is flawed.

say you have a graphically "average" wii game, and a graphically "average" ps3 game. You know the ps3 game is going to be graphically superior, because the ps3 has way more power, but the graphics are "average" for the system. Most people can use that information to decide which game they want to buy.

Do you really need to put it on an absolute scale? if you do, then graphics shouldn't affect the overall score to much, cause the Wii would be forced to score between 2-8, yet the PS3/360 would be forced to score between 5-10. You now have 2 completely differnt and meaningless scores cause the PC now needs to score between 2-11, cause 11 is louder... I mean better.

I think having them all in the ring would lend clarity to the matter and put things into perspective.  That definitely includes the PC.  These days people very much want to compare games across platforms.  Every time a game comes out for HD consoles we get tons of comparisons with other HD console games as well as even PC games.  It'd be nice to see a rating scale that penalizes the deficiencies of all the platforms.

Regardless, that's not the direction vgChartz will go.  The sad part is that the best vgChartz will achieve with its current direction in reviews is simple mediocrity.

After playing RE4 Wii with its excellent controls and then trying RE5 on an HD console, the transition is painful.  I don't understand the inclination to pretend that a superior control system doesn't exist especially when the reminder it does is so poignant.

Did I read it right when I read that Surround sound is not factored into the score?

Why not?

With Killzone 2 the sound is one of the more important parts, how could that just be ignored? Sound is just as important as graphics IMO. Killzone 2 with surround sound makes it much more immersive.

As mentioned already, when a company like GG puts so much effort into their surround sound capabilities and Konami does the same with MGS4, they should be rewarded for it. Who gives a damn if Wii or some other system and/or game can't do it, that shouldn't take away from those that can. They should get extra points for going the extra mile.