| Khuutra said: Noname, I admire your energy! Such replies in response to relatively short posts. |
A lot of filler.
Seece when you said you would reply "later" I sort of assumed it meant you wouldn't be in here reading the thread while we waited
I'd seriously be willing to bet that if SMG2 gets 90%+ on Metacritic, not a single complaint about Metacritic will be heard from Wii fans.
AE101 said:
No...SMG2 will get 90%+ easily, and Wii fans will suddenly forget their hatred for metacritic. |
"Hatred" is the wrong word - even "ambivalence" may be too strong in this case.
It's an acknowledgement that Metacritic is not a proper metric of quality - and that is not limited to "Wii fans", either. Many would decry the point about GTAIV, for instance.
| silicon said:
Sales doesn't equate to quality. You can see this in every aspect of life.
|
This is a false dichotomy, and you know it. In your scenario, as in the real world, quality products tend to be cost-prohibitive: as you point out, most people buy cheap clothes, because they have little choice, but they never claim that said clothes are of the highest quality.
By contrast, a good game and a bad game tend to cost the same. Unlike most other media, we don't have to pay extra for quality.
Video game reviewers play tons and tons of games. After playing a lot of games you begin to get a sense of what's good and what's bad and what's been done. Each reviewer begins to base their opinions on their past experiences.
I could not disagree more with the bolded. Neither I nor anyone else magically "learns" what makes a good or bad game by playing more. At best, we refine our own personal tastes as a result of playing. Take a look around these forums. Most of us are long-time gamers. How often do we agree on what's a good or bad game?
Take a game like Wii Fit. Chances are there's a huge group of people who's first experience into the world of gaming was Wii Fit.
If sales relate to quality then someone who has no experience playing video games can have a better understanding of quality than people who have spent the past 20 years playing video games.
Ask yourself this: why is Wii Fit most people's first game? I think we can agree that many of those people are not children, or people who otherwise had no chance to play games before. So why haven't they played games until now? Why, for that matter, does the majority of humanity (including the overwhelming majority of women) think that video games are puerile distractions that should be outgrown?
You're entirely on the wrong track. Wii Fit (and other "casual" games) are anathema to the small niche that is the "hardcore gamer" because it appeals to values that differ entirely from the ones they're accustomed to. And it's precisely that same appeal to new values that make Wii Fit attractive to the masses. These people are never going to "learn" the values of the "hardcore." They're never going to see eye-to-eye with people who drool over Metal Gear Solid or Gears of War. Ten years from now experience with gaming won't cause them to acknowlege that God of War is the epitome of gaming.
They have an entirely different definition of "quality" than you do. And they always will. You may not like it, but these people are putting their money where their mouth is by purchasing in droves what the "hardcore" deem "crappy games," and they continue to do so. So either you think that they're fools who are being suckered into buying shit, or you acknowledge that maybe their idea of quality games differs quite a bit from yours.
For the record, I don't mean any of this post as an attack on you. It was just easier to directly address you and your post than to step back and speak in generalities. My apologies if anything I wrote struck you as a personal assault.
| Seece said: I'll reply to you later noname! |
Fair enough; I have to get going myself. My filler and I await your response.
Seece said:
It's not elitist. I think Lips (X360) is a fun game, a great game in fact (for me personally) do i think it should have scored any higher than 7.5? no. There is a measure on the worth of a game, graphics, sound ect. A game sells 20 mill, does that automatically mean it has all those qualities to make it a high rated game? |
Graphics is not ON PAPER
On paper has to be totally objective, while as graphics are totally opinion. Proof is these forums, and how much bitching goes abotu over whats best graphics, adn this looks like shit, yet others think looks great.
Objective things can include graphical faults such as jagged lines, arms going through bodies, objects through walls, ect. Or can include bad animation and non fluid movements. Other objective thigns to rate are bugs/gliches/loading times/length of game/lag/freezes and other things.
now yes lenght of game some can say is biased, but I think you shoudl consider if a 5 hour game worth the price of the game. Lets take Heavenly Sword for example. It is what a short game i've heard. no multiplayer. All things considered, graphics, story, and whatever the hell else you want to throw at me, I see no way in how a 6 hour game is worth $60. To me that's like going to the movie theatre and paying full price to watch a half hour tv show, or 20 some minute without commercials. Not worth the price. Now should they have to make all games long? No, forcing length can ruin a game and the story shoudl only be so long. But no way should we be paying $60 for that length. ANd that should be shown in the review.
Thinking fo review systems what is typical
Presentation - What is this exactly?
Graphics - Should be just considering technical graphical faults with teh game. People can clearly see what a game looks like on the cover/pics/videos that we shouldn't be forced to accept a reviewers OPINION on what he thought of graphics.
Sound - Same as graphics, should be reviewed based on technical things, like clarity, correct mood music during scenes, fluidity of transitioning music, ect. We dont' need opinons on whether they liked the score or not. everyone has different taste in music.
Gameplay - this important and shoudl be based on well gameplay, how well does game play, gliches, poor controls that DON'T WORK, ect. Not whether they would prefer a button push over a shake.
Lasting Appeal - This is tough for me. I mean to be completely objective should look at yes all extras to get, trophies/achievements/sidequest, multiplayer local and online. But then have to also be somewhat opinionated on this though. You have to think will they want to replay game over again cause story so well written and engrosing. Or does this game outshine all others in same genre, and no matter how many other online shooters come out you will continue to come back to this game.
Khuutra said:
"Hatred" is the wrong word - even "ambivalence" may be too strong in this case. It's an acknowledgement that Metacritic is not a proper metric of quality - and that is not limited to "Wii fans", either. Many would decry the point about GTAIV, for instance. |
So I take it I can count on you complaining about Metacritic in SMG2's thread when it gets 90%+?
Why? Metacritic serves no point, it's foolish to use as an argument. GTA4 is NOT the best game this gen.
| Samus Aran said:
I think it's funny how on metacritic for almost any HD game the user score is lower then the average professional review score and vice versa with the wii.
Metacritic is a great site because you don't have to search ages for other reviews. All collected in one place, but to use it for which game you buy.... No thank you!
Ps: What's up with the "onion club" site? They always give wii games bad reviews and I see them giving 100% to every HD game. |
i know man, HD games are bullshit, they have no quality except graphics and they dont deserve the reviews they are getting, all of those reviews are bought and biased. We dont really have a proof for that but we like to make it as an excuse when someone brings metacritic.
Sure, some people like to bring metacritic when it comes to Zelda:Ocarnia of Time and Super Mario Galaxy, and Super Mario World, but if a nintedo game deosnt get a good review (read: doesnt get a 95+ score ) reviews are all biased. Funny how that works
FYI: Uncharted 2 got the highest user score on metacritic, i guees Sony paid their customers to score uncharted 2 as well??? Arent all HD games overrated pieces of shit???
EDIT:
Super Mario Galaxy MC score: 97
User score: 91
Zelda:Twilight Princess MC score: 95
User score 92
World Of Goo MC score: 94
User Score: 90
SSBB MC score: 93
User Score: 88
Rock Band MC score: 92
User score: 88
Metriod Prime Triology MC score: 91
User Score: 92
RE4 Wii Edition MC score: 91
User Score 91
Okami MC score : 90
Okami user score 90
OMG WII GAMES ARE OVERRATED!!!!!! REVIEWERS ARE BIASED AGAINST PS360 !!!!!!!
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
