By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Website Topics - VG Chartz are Nintendo fanboys?

Torillian on 06 November 2009

If you see a pattern between system reviews it probably has much more to do with the fact that certain systems are handled by certain reviewers than with any inherent bias in how we review. Each reviewer must list presentation, gameplay, and value scores and the overall can be anywhere between the highest and lowest component. Reviewers have alot of leeway here to weight the components however they see fit, and I personally do it on a game by game basis.



...

Around the Network
Fab_GS on 06 November 2009
eggs2see said:

To be honest i started the thread due partly to the fact i was outraged by your review of Metroid Trilogy. Don't get me wrong i loved the game.. when it came out that is. But you actually rated it higher than Uncharted 2 (a game I, and almost everyone else in the world believes may well be the second coming of jesus). I also felt that it would be a nice change of topic to the usual threads of, "how much do you think nsmbwii will sell" etc, etc.....


Umm... why are you taking as if ioi rated both of these games? They were both rated by different reviewers, different opinions.

And Do you know that IGN gave both Uncharted 2 ("the second coming of jesus") and Metroid Prime Trilogy the same score (9.5).
ZOMG IGN are Wii bias comfirmed?!



Fab_GS on 06 November 2009
Machina said:

I wrote a couple of the reviews quoted in this thread, and also content edited a few of them. I also happen to track all of these stats, so without trying to sound my own trumpet I know more about this than anyone else on the site. Whilst your examples are clearly cherry picked, you are actually correct that, when compared with Metacritic across the board, VGC is above average for Wii games, and roughly on par for PS3 & 360 games.

Now, the question is why? And the answer you've come up with is a site bias. I don't agree (I also don't agree with ioi's explanation that it's our scoring system, I find that even less convincing than yours to be honest). This is my explanation:

In the case of reviews it's not a case of the site itself being biased - there's no way you could orchestrate such a bias amongst 18 different people (that's roughly how many active reviewers we have) and 5 different content editors. It's my view that the scoring differences are less about console preference, and more about how harsh or lenient the reviewer who happens to review a particular game (and own a particular console) is.

I'll use Torillian as an example because I know he won't mind. His main console is the PS3 and his secondary console the Wii. I don't think anyone would accuse him of being anti-PS3 (and if they do they're plain wrong), but he's one of our harsher scorers. Given that he writes far more PS3 reviews for the site than anyone else, the end result is that for PS3 reviews we tend to be roughly in-line with Metacritic. This clearly fits my explanation better than yours (and it's the case with every single one us by the way) - is he anti-PS3? Or, more plausibly, is he one of our harsher reviews who happens to mainly review PS3 games because he actually prefers the PS3?

You'll find this with our primary Wii reviewers as well - there are some who score harshly when compared with Metacritic (O-D-C is a good example), and then there are those who score generously (I won't give an example since I don't think it's fair to do so without their permission, but you could easily work it out for yourself).

In short, I think the reason for the difference is the harshness/leniency of the main reviewers and which consoles they happen to own and enjoy, quite the opposite to idea of the site seeking to bump up scores for Wii games and penalise PS360 games.


/thread



eggs2see on 06 November 2009
Machina said:
I wrote a couple of the reviews quoted in this thread. I also happen to track all of these stats, so without trying to sound my own trumpet I know more about this than anyone else on the site. Whilst your examples are clearly cherry picked, you are actually correct that, when compared with Metacritic across the board, VGC is above average for Wii games, and roughly on par for PS3 & 360 games.

Now, the question is why? And the answer you've come up with is a site bias. I don't agree (I also don't agree with ioi's explanation that it's our scoring system, I find that even less convincing than yours to be honest). This is my explanation:

In the case of reviews it's not a case of the site itself being biased - there's no way you could orchestrate such a bias amongst 18 different people (that's roughly how many active reviewers we have) and 5 different content editors. It's my view that the scoring differences are less about console preference, and more about how harsh or lenient the reviewer who happens to review a particular game (and own a particular console) is.

I'll use Torillian as an example because I know he won't mind. His main console is the PS3 and his secondary console the Wii. I don't think anyone would accuse him of being anti-PS3 (and if they do they're plain wrong), but he's one of our harsher scorers. Given that he writes far more PS3 reviews for the site than anyone else, the end result is that for PS3 reviews we tend to be roughly in-line with Metacritic. This clearly fits my explanation better than yours (and it's the case with every single one us by the way) - is he anti-PS3? Or, more plausibly, is he one of our harsher reviews who happens to mainly review PS3 games because he actually prefers the PS3?

You'll find this with our primary Wii reviewers as well - there are some who score harshly when compared with Metacritic (O-D-C is a good example), and then there are those who score generously (I won't give an example since I don't think it's fair to do so without their permission, but you could easily work it out for yourself).

In short, I think the reason for the difference is the harshness/leniency of the main reviewers and which consoles they happen to own and enjoy, quite the opposite to idea of the site seeking to bump up scores for Wii games and penalise PS360 games.

Thank you for clarifying that Machina.  I think all of your answers actually partially add up to the reason why the reviews are the way they are.  A combination of harsher reviewers for PS3/X360, atendency to favour gameplay over graphics, and the fact that reviews cannot be compared across platforms.

I started this topic in my mind likely to never read another VGChartz review, or at most give it very little weighting in my mind.  However now after reading what you, the reviewers have to say, i see justification, in that reviews cannot be compared across systems, something i have always done, and something i believe most people do.  At the end of the day i feel this topic has actually produced a fair debate and i thank you ioi for not immediately closing the thread down and allowing me to further put forward my point of view.



dunno001 on 06 November 2009
psrock said:
ioi said:
Well we can get into a whole debate about how you review a game and what is important - I'll leave that to everyone else if you want to turn this thread into that.

I'm simply saying that we don't have a "Nintendo bias" in our reviews, we strive for a particular balance which probably penalises poor presentation / graphics to a lesser extent that other sites. This can happen within a platform as well as across different platforms.

The only thing, it's not balanced if certain aspect of today's games are penalises. We are in 2009 and closer 2010, graphics and presentation has become a big deal in most of the biggest games. It's frankly not fair to ignore it because it would hurt another console. Each game should be considered differently.

It sounds quite bias the way you said it, but after seeing COD4 on the Wii, a port, I must say a lot of developers should not get he benefit of doubt for their lack of effort on that system.

Graphics is a big part of gaming and for me once you ignore, it really hurts what reviews are suppose to be about.



Well, ioi already debunked that graphics aren't important, but I wanted to add a small thought here. If I am looking to buy a game for a system (I'll use the Wii since it seems to be the hot one in this thread.), I want to know how that game is for that system. I don't own a PS3; I don't want to hear fanboy whining about "Well, the PS3 did..." No. Just no. I am in the market for a Wii game. I want it compared to other Wii games. Now, if the graphics of a game were to make something like Wii Fit look stunning, then feel free to dock it, as you have compared it to another game I have the option to get (or may already have). If it's one of the best looking games on the Wii, feel free to tell me that also.

What happens to me is that when you need to go cross-platform to make graphics look good/bad, you're looking for an excuse to dock points from one platform and give them to the other. And this is the problem with professional reviewers- they do this all the time. I didn't buy a Wii because I want a graphics powerhouse. I bought it for the difference in playstyle. But docked points for something I didn't buy the system for just makes me trust reviews less and less. And I think that's one of the things that VGChartz is able to do- we may have reviewers on this site, but (to my knowledge, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), we're not professional reviewers, doing this as our only job. The users on this site play games for fun. That's what gets weighted in the score more, and rightfully so.

-dunno001

-On a quest for the truly perfect game; I don't think it exists...

Around the Network
Kantor on 06 November 2009

I wouldn't say Nintendo fanboys. But they are more harsh on HD games and less harsh on Wii games than most reviewers.

EDIT: That is to say, the Wii reviewers tend to be less harsh than the HD reviewers.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective