Eh, the numbers don't matter much. Even if a game gets a terrible score, I still read the review if I was looking into the game to see what they thought was wrong with it. Then, I can decide whether or not those issues are serious enough to make me not buy it or just ignore the bad reviews. Sure, the numbers can give a nice overview, but it's the content that counts for me so I don't really see a need for a graphics score.

@DKII
Considering how many Wii/360 and Wii/PS3 and Wii/PC owners there are you surely can't be sure that you are speaking to people that only want to know how this compares to only other Wii titles. I would hope that most reviewers don't rate graphics based on being HD or not, but more on how it helps the overall presentation and immersion.

@Wow
Not everyone finds motion controls to be superior. It's an opinion. Just like many people can't stand KB + M so they use consoles. Because in that situation the Wii is painfully inferior in many situations. They aren't pretending a better control scheme doesn't exist. That control scheme simply isn't superior to them.

Edited to be on topic: I don't think graphics need an extra category.  I think that presentation is the proper term and attitude we should use when looking at them.

Value on the other hand seems to be a pointless category. If a title is good what does price matter?  I would've payed $100 to play SotC.  Many people would've bought Portal by itself.  If you can really judge the content on cost then just about all games minus Orange Box and Wii Sports come up severly lacking.  I think the review should be addressed at the content not it's price.  Let consumers decide that and just tell them about what a wonderful world they are getting themselves into.

Hmm

They certainly should. IGN does it, why not VG?

This.

presentation

I continue to value the current 3 scores.

They are straight forward and effective towards what makes a game, a game. If more details are wanted they should be added to the review in general.

I know those who have jumped on the graphics band wagon will argue, but a game with bad graphics can still be fun and have great value if it's a good game.

if you try to gauge all systems together like some of you are suggesting, there would be some cases suc as a DS game, where it would never get above a 5 because it had no surround sound a N64 graphics.

does that sound fair at all, or should we base all games on how they look worse than MGS4 or crysis? Then we can hack down all of the old reviews because Super Mario bros. needs a 1 due to Crysis having better sound and graphics....

I think we should have the reviews for those that read them, and not to be used as dick measuring contests for folks.

Hmm Lol