Two statements that I think should be retired from Wii reviews etc

[DracIsBack]

Last night, I was reading a review of RESIDENT EVIL: THE DARKSIDE CHRONICLES for the Wii, and I noticed a few statements in the review and/or comments below that I'm thinking really should be retired.

 

Statement number 1: "The graphics on this Wii game suck compared to __ Xbox 360 or PS3 game"

 

I've seen games like RESIDENT EVIL: DARKSIDE CHRONICLES, THE CONDUIT and DEADSPACE EXTRACTION all receive criticism along the lines of "the graphics are terrible on this game. They don't compare to ___ XBox 360 and PS3 games"

 

No shit, Sherlock. That's because the Wii doesn't have graphics capabilities like those systems. And you know the real shocker? Wait ... for it ...

 

This isn't news!!!!

 

When the Wii came out, there was a furor because it didn't support HD graphics, was "two GameCubes duck-taped together", was woefully underpowered next to the competition" etc. It's well known and long established that it's the weakest of the three.

 

When I read reviews that say, "the graphics of Deadspace Extraction/Darkside Chronicles suck", only to see them compared to XBox 360 games, I find it gets tiring and isn't really fair. That's a criticism of the Wii itself (and an old, old, old one) unfairly leveled at the games. I wish more reviewers would review on the basis of other Wii games, especially in the visuals department. The story is very different when you compare those games' graphics against the others in the Wii library.

 

 

 

Statement number 2: "The Wii is a Fad!!"

 

I'm amazed that I still see this. Yes, the Wii was a phenomenon. Yes, the hardcore gamers have had reason to criticize it - lots of shovelware, underpowered, different control scheme that doesn't work for all games, some titles sell poorly etc.

 

On the other hand, the Wii is going into its fourth Christmas. if it's a fad, that's a seriously long one compared to any other fad I've seen. They usually are gone in a year. Love the Wii or hate the Wii, I really think this statement has lost all validity now.

 

What has happened is that competition is heating up, a recession has hit and all the consoles are moving into a state in their lifecycles where price adjustments have been happening (also - NOT A NEW THING: see every other game generation). I'm glad Microsoft and Sony are being more competitive. Good for them. I'm glad Nintendo has been given an ego check. Awesome.

 

Even though Nintendo is not flying as high as they once did, I don't think a three year old console that still outsold its two more powerful competitors in October can rightly be called a "fad"

 

Don't venting. :-)

[StanJr]

Agree wholeheartedly.

 

 

I am so tired of these evaluations that are obvious by definition. You are not buying Wii games for the awesome, life-shattering graphics (most of the time, although I think the graphic capabilities are just fine, how good do graphics really need to be? I think Solaris has pretty impressive graphics...). You are buying Wii games because of the innovative and engaging game play. Tell me more about that in your review, good or bad.

 

I'm also tired of the blanket statement that the "Wii motion controls are misused/muddying up game X." If there are specific control issues, fine, tell me this, but don't hide behind this weak umbrella critique. It is too easy and usually wrong. (What is most likely being said is: "Wii motion controls are too confusing for me to understand/force me to be active when I am a big fat pantload who likes to spend 15 hours a day on a couch playing video games/require me to learn a new way to play video games and I'm too lazy to do that"). I agree not all Wii control schemes are conducive to the game they are applied to (Monkey Ball Banana Blitz), but most of the games I have played utilize them perfectly (Tiger Woods, Mario Kart, Cooking Mama, Blazing Angels, Trauma Center, Wario Ware, etc. etc.). Unless I get some details as to why the motion controls disrupt game play, your review goes into the "too lazy to try" pile.

 

Thanks for the chance to vent.

Edited November 28, 2009 by StanJr

[rpgfaker]

That's funny I agree with both statements. The Wii is a fad and graphically should not be in today's market. It's like comparing a Tiger handheld to a Gameboy.

[BydoEmpire]

I agree with the OP, comparing Wii games to HD games is pretty dumb because it should be obvious. You have to rate a game based on its performance on the platform, and rate the art direction - how well do they use the technology they have. Good art direction trumps good graphics technology any day. Zelda: Twilight Princess, Metroid Prime 3 and Dead Space Extraction are all great looking games. Not HD, of course, but great looking games nonetheless.

 

It is totally fair to criticize Wii games whose graphics are just bad, and don't take advantage of the hardware. There were a lot of PSP ports and cheap cash-in games that just had bad graphics and art direction, and deserve the critical reception they got.

 

If by "fad" you mean "the best selling console of the generation" then yes, it's a fad. I haven't seen the Wii called a "fad" in any reviews (at least in the last couple of years), though. Just gaming message boards.

[Warriorisabouttodie]

I agree with the OP. I gave up on taking Wii reviews at face value a long time ago. I have a Wii, I am a hardcore gamer, I have a ton fun with it and that is a fact. The new Resident Evil game is awesome and the graphics are good and I dont even like on rails shooters! Sure, it looks like Resident Evil 4 not 5, but like you say since when do you compare across platform lines especially with games that aren't even available on the xbox or the ps3!!! There is a Wii bias because kids see it as a kiddie or old persons platform. This is something Nintendo needs to address with their next console or they are doomed to fall in the same pattern they fell into last time they were on the top of the video game heap.

 

 

The line regarding reviewers unfairly critisizing Wii games without taking the time to learn the control scheme or in some cases go into "options" and change settings shows you how biased they are and little time they put into writing their Wii reviews.

[hex65000]

I agree with the OP. [ ... ] since when do you compare across platform lines especially with games that aren't even available on the xbox or the ps3!!! There is a Wii bias because kids see it as a kiddie or old persons platform. This is something Nintendo needs to address with their next console or they are doomed to fall in the same pattern they fell into last time they were on the top of the video game heap.

Also a general agreement here with the original poster.

 

However, I disagree with the comparisons across platforms statement. It's been done for as long as the console fan first proclaimed one system to be better than all others and why. Usually over ports -- because you at least then have something apples to apples like -- but not always.

 

Perhaps that's why it's so prevalent on the Wii... not enough apples and the controller lacks two thumbsticks in many cases. <shrug>

 

It's also interesting that the GCube was also called 'kiddy' despite having mature titles such as Eternal Darkness, Killer 7, and of course the reissues of Resident Evil.

 

The same thing can be said about the Wii. No more Heroes 1 & 2, Madworld, Red Steel, The Conduit, Dead Space Extraction, House of the Dead, Resident Evil... Sure they're 3rd party titles, in a majority of cases, but there's not a lot of 'kiddy' in Madworld, No More Heroes, and Killer 7.

 

It's a convenient label to slap on the Wii. It sticks for at least one reason in my mind: Namely that it's a great way for Nintendo to target the non-mainstream gamer market. They've typically geared themselves to be family friendly and made a good chunk of money doing it. Why stop now?

 

As for the fad part, the Wii has lost some of its luster over the past year for me, but I don't view it as a crappy system, there's still some things that the PS/360 just don't have implemented well and that's okay I'm happy with the little white slab.

 

Hex.

[ This silicon level circuit design thing is just getting tired... ]

[Warriorisabouttodie]

I agree with the OP. [ ... ] since when do you compare across platform lines especially with games that aren't even available on the xbox or the ps3!!! There is a Wii bias because kids see it as a kiddie or old persons platform. This is something Nintendo needs to address with their next console or they are doomed to fall in the same pattern they fell into last time they were on the top of the video game heap.

Also a general agreement here with the original poster.

 

However, I disagree with the comparisons across platforms statement. It's been done for as long as the console fan first proclaimed one system to be better than all others and why. Usually over ports -- because you at least then have something apples to apples like -- but not always.

 

 

 

I have no problem comparing a game that is available on the 360 or PS3, but why take a Wii exclusive title and bring up those platforms at all? Conduit isn't avail for the PS3 but it receives only a lukewarm positive review with the caveat if you have a 360/ps3 you can do better... okay even that has some merit, but you can't read a wii review whether it's multi platform or not without a mention of the Wii lacking HD support.

[moycon]

To be honest, I don't even understand the original post. Games like RESIDENT EVIL: THE DARKSIDE CHRONICLES, DEADSPACE EXTRACTION and THE CONDUIT aren't on the 360 or the PS3 so what kind of reviewer would state that the graphics weren't as good as the 360 or PS3 versions? Dumb ones I guess. My advice. Find a better review site. One whose reviewers have a clue.

[Crazy Climber]

To be honest, I don't even understand the original post. Games like RESIDENT EVIL: THE DARKSIDE CHRONICLES, DEADSPACE EXTRACTION and THE CONDUIT aren't on the 360 or the PS3 so what kind of reviewer would state that the graphics weren't as good as the 360 or PS3 versions? Dumb ones I guess. My advice. Find a better review site. One whose reviewers have a clue.

Exactly what I was thinking. The Wii usually gets an entirely different game made for it when it is a popular title (Resident evil, etc..)

I actually find this cool since I get to play 2 different games, advantages to owning a Wii and a 360

[DracIsBack]

To be honest, I don't even understand the original post.

 

Let me say this another way:

 

- I still read way too many reviews, analyst reports, forum posts and blog articles calling the Wii a fad, even though the damn thing is doing into its fourth Christmas and still outselling the other consoles (though not as assured or by as much as before). To me, that's idiotic to call it a fad *THREE YEARS LATER*.

 

- I've read numerous game reviews on numerous sites where people criticize the better looking Wii games for "having bad graphics that aren't like 360 games". It's poor reviewing at this point because the Wii isn't going to get games than look like 360 titles. period.

[Bilnick]

I do not think it is unfair to compare graphics between platforms. It doesn't bother me if a reviwer says that the PC version of a game has better graphics than the 360 version. To me that is information I want to know in choosing which platform to buy a game on. For people who own only one platform I can see why it is not as important. But many people have more than one modern platform to play games on.

 

Comparing control schemes between platforms is also viable. How many reviews state that a mouse and keyboard is a superior control scheme to play fps games vs a control pad? Doesn't bother me one bit....it is just one of the limitations of a console. If the new Call of Duty game controls better on the 360 than it does on the Wii, so be it.

 

Customers have a certain expectation when buying a franchise game. Comparing a new Resident Evil game to older titles, or titles on other platforms is absolutely a viable practice. Fans of a franchise series have likely played other titles and it gives them a frame of reference. How many times do people say Super Mario Galaxy is better than Super Mario Sunshine, but not as good as XYZ Mario game? Comparing the Wii CoD to the 360 version is fine even though they are different titles. It helps me decide which one to buy first or not at all.

 

Comparing a game like The Conduit to other fps games seems reasonable. If a trusted reviewer said The Conduit was better than Bioshock I would definitely take a second look at that title.

 

The Wii has sold well for long enough to be beyond the fad status. I am curious as to whether it will be a one trick pony, but that answer will not be revealed until the Wii 2 is out for a while.

[moycon]

It's poor reviewing at this point because the Wii isn't going to get games than look like 360 titles. period.

 

Right that makes sense for sure.

 

Can you post the link to some of these reviews so we can read them also? I would like to see who reviewed them.

[Warriorisabouttodie]

It's poor reviewing at this point because the Wii isn't going to get games than look like 360 titles. period.

 

Right that makes sense for sure.

 

Can you post the link to some of these reviews so we can read them also? I would like to see who reviewed them.

 

 

just look up almost any Wii review...

[moycon]

just look up almost any Wii review...

 

I just looked up several Wii reviews on IGN, none of them stated a game that was not released on the 360 or PS3 suffered on the Wii because it didn't look like a 360 or PS3 game. Perhaps you could simply post a few so I don't waste more of my time? Like I said it might be the review sites you are going to or it might be a particular reviewer.

Edited December 1, 2009 by moycon

[Tom-Lynx]

You'll find that many of these reviewers can't come up with original and creative comments after the first few articles. Another favorite (not) that I see all the time is that the music sucks for GameBoy game reviews. Well....no kidding.

 

Well into the GameCube's lifecycle the "Kiddy" comments were so old I started skipping every review that brought it up. The Wii "Fad" comments are the same now.

 

Regardless of what kind of fanboy you are, you need to write neutral, objective and professional reviews if you are a writer.

[BydoEmpire]

I do not think it is unfair to compare graphics between platforms. It doesn't bother me if a reviwer says that the PC version of a game has better graphics than the 360 version

I would agree if the hardware is similar, but does it makes sense to say "the graphics on Lord of the Rings sucks on the DS, it doesn't look nearly as good as the Xbox 360 version?" I don't think it does. It's obvious the DS and 360 are not going to be the same. The question should be "does it look good for the DS." If it's between the 360, ps3 and PC, then that's a valid comparison. Saying the Wii version's graphics aren't as good as the 360 is just silly. Saying whether or not the Wii version looks good is also totally valid - does it have a stable framerate, good textures, good art direction?

 

Game controls are totally valid to compare cross-platform, and they had better mention if there are problems with the controls (particularly on Wii).

Edited December 1, 2009 by BydoEmpire

[bretthorror]

When I'd check out Wii reviews, I always came across the same thing on multiplat games or ones in which the reviewer simply had nothing more to say and had to fill in space (which I think is the case whenever something like this is brought up). I mean, the only people who read the game reviews are the hardcore gamers and obviously they don't need this type of redundancy, so it's just a filler thing. Hell, I've read COD DS reviews that brought up COD vs. its current home console counterpart in terms of graphics and functionality. And, in the mainstream hardcore game community, there is little to no call for partiality. The reviewers are just as big of fanboys as anyone else. Another reason why no one takes gaming seriously.

 

Another thing I hate is how reviews and scores always drift away from an overall fun factor. I think most people play games to have fun and those who are always talking about how good of a story a game has obviously hasn't seen too many movies or read many books because the vast majority of them are downright pitiful, even compared to cheesy movies. If I want a good story, a video game simply isn't where I go.

[BydoEmpire]

I think most people play games to have fun and those who are always talking about how good of a story a game has obviously hasn't seen too many movies or read many books because the vast majority of them are downright pitiful, even compared to cheesy movies. If I want a good story, a video game simply isn't where I go.

Amen to that. Reviewers think any clever bit of dialog makes the game War & Peace.

[vdub_bobby]

I think most reviews are decent. My biggest complaint is when they review a multi-platform game and it's pretty clear that they gave only a cursory glance, if that, to the Wii version. For example, see the review of Tiger Woods PGA Tour 10.

 

It's pretty clear at this point that, in aggregate, most reviews score Wii games about 0.5/10 points lower than a comparable HD game, but I think the text of most reviews is for the most part pretty good.

 

What cracks me up is when reviewers complain about Wii controls that are almost universally regarded as awesome. That just screams to me: "Video game player FAIL!" It's as much as admitting in print that you suck at video games:

Second, using the Wii Remote as a pointer for first-person shooters sucks. When playing an FPS with a traditional controller, the majority of the time your aiming stick is at rest – you make minor corrections via minute taps to control where you are looking. Conversely, the Wii Remote requires you to constantly aim at the center of the screen, lest your POV sways around like a drunkard falling off of a barstool.

Jeff Marchiafava, you just suck at video games. The hilarious thing is that they gave Metroid Prime Trilogy a 9/10 and praised its controls. I guess great graphics design can make you...what? Overlook control issues? Or is it that (relatively) bad graphics make control issues appear out of nowhere?

 

Actually, that review is pretty awful overall, with the first two paragraphs going on and on about how much worse-looking COD: MWR is than the original HD Modern Warfare. But whatever, GI has been phoning in its Wii coverage for at least a year anyway, so what can you expect?

 

EDIT: Memories! Rereading GI's review of The Conduit is hilarious as well:

Aiming is mediocre without being heinous. Tracking the slow-moving AI enemies isn't much of a problem, but drawing a bead on a human opponent is tough even with the game's ploddingly slow movement speed. That said, it's not impossible to get used to, and I'm certain the scheme will have its defenders as players spend time with it.

 

The larger problem is the poor secondary button placement on the Wii remote. It's difficult to use the d-pad without drunkenly jerking your view around, and you end up with common actions assigned to those buttons no matter how you configure the controls.

If you can't aim with the Wii remote and can't reach the buttons on it without jerking your view around, then Adam Biessener, you suck at video games.

Edited December 3, 2009 by vdub_bobby

[StanJr]

Agreed, Tiger Woods PGA 2010 for the Wii is AMAZING and 90% because of the awesome controls. It's like freaking playing golf (I know I do both). So when the weather is bad or greens fees are high, I can get a real golf experience in my living room.

 

I cannot imagine playing it with a D-pad or stick. boo.

[moycon]

If you can't aim with the Wii remote and can't reach the buttons on it without jerking your view around, then Adam Biessener, you suck at video games.

 

Like I said, it might be the reviewer. I remember reading a review years ago (Like 15+ years ago). It was a racing game and the reviewer started the review with. "I hate these types of games..."

 

 

Ummmmmmmm I thought immediately... Ok then, your opinion on a racing game means very little to me!! At least he let me know right away not to waste my time reading his review which of course was LOW. LOL

[Jess Ragan]

The Wii hasn't just proven itself to be more than a fad. It's won this console war. It's sold more units than its competitors and has earned far more profit for Nintendo than the Xbox 360 has for Microsoft or the Playstation 3 has for Sony. The fact that we're four years into this generation of systems and people still refuse to give the Wii due credit is absolutely maddening to me. I may not like some of the games on the system or Nintendo's lax approach to third-party quality control, but the simple fact is that the Wii is the dominant game system of this generation. If the fanboys are expecting that to change, they've got a long, long wait ahead of them.

[Mendon]

I admit that I'm sometimes guilty of comparing games on one system to its appearance on another console. Maybe not as bad as some of the reviewers that were described in this thread, but I do compare. A perfect example of this was Dead Rising.

 

I played and fully enjoyed Dead Rising on the Xbox360; I put in a lot of hours on it. And I decided to buy Dead Rising: Chop til you Drop when it was released for the Wii. After playing 30 min of Chop til you Drop, I was appalled at what Capcom had done to the franchise to get it to "fit on the Wii". The graphic's were terrible... the frame rate was terrible... the gameplay (not having full access to the mall, for example) was terrible... the control was terrible.... the game sucked, IMO.

 

Would I have felt that way if Dead Rising had not appeared on the 360 and was a Wii exclusive? Maybe not. But I do know that, right or wrong, my dislike of "Chop til you Drop" was influenced in large part by the enjoyment I had playing Dead Rising on the 360.

 

 

When you stop and think about it, there have always been comparisons of games on differing systems: Mattel used to show the "blocky" Atari2600 version of football & baseball compared to "life like" Intellivision football & baseball (Yer Out!). Sonic's blazing speed vs. Mario "putt-putt-putt" Kart was compared in the famous "Sega does what NintenDON'T" commercials. And like todays arguments of the Wii-mote vs. standard controller, there were many comparisons of the Intellivision keypad vs. the joystick.

 

I'm not defending bad Wii reviewers in any way, but just saying that sometimes its very difficult to NOT compare games (or control method) on differing systems.

 

 

Mendon

[RevEng]

Truthfully I very rarely read professional reviews anymore. Normal review bias is bad enough, but the big game companies do their best to strong-arm and/or bribe the bigger review sites.

 

I've read enough reviews of games that I had already played that were completely and factually false; it soured me on the whole thing.

 

I now research the basic gameplay mechanic (youtube, official game site, whatever), and then hit up metacritic for the best, worst, and average user ratings.

 

And, of course, I also listen to the wise words of folks who post on AA.

[moycon]

And, of course, I also listen to the wise words of folks who post on AA.

 

Agreed!!! I've bought more games based on AA folks opinions then the ones on web sites or in mags.