Why Wii Games Rate So Low?

CombatCraig

CombatCraig

CAGiversary!
Feedback
4 (100%)
Interesting article

Maybe we can draw any debate discussion about game ratings to this thread instead of drowning specific game threads. Just suggesting! :D

Personally, I think what he's saying generally makes sense. Most game reviewers are so used to hardcore graphics and gameplay that when a system like the Wii comes along they're thrown off guard. Just my opinion.

I do like this quote though:
Reviewers, on the other hand, have spent years lauding technical achievements and ever more realistic gameplay. Now they have to answer a question for which their training is quite possibly ill-suited: “Are these games fun to play?”
Click to expand...
 
I like that quote too.

What I would like to see is a year-by-year comparison between Wii review scores and DS ones, seeing as how the latter also introduced a new way to play games.
 
[quote name='CombatCraig']Interesting article

Maybe we can draw any debate discussion about game ratings to this thread instead of drowning specific game threads. Just suggesting! :D

Personally, I think what he's saying generally makes sense. Most game reviewers are so used to hardcore graphics and gameplay that when a system like the Wii comes along they're thrown off guard. Just my opinion.

I do like this quote though:[/QUOTE]

I have one problem with the article, the graphs are not properly displayed. They do not show zero on their axis and start at like 60, which exagerates the difference visually. The proper way to show a graph like that would be to show zero a broken line then 60.
 
[quote name='foltzie']I have one problem with the article, the graphs are not properly displayed. They do not show zero on their axis and start at like 60, which exagerates the difference visually. The proper way to show a graph like that would be to show zero a broken line then 60.[/quote]

That is true - I didn't notice that. Thanks for pointing it out
 
Whats the big deal? The Wii has a lot of crappy games. As do the DS, GBA, PS2, PS1, etc. All popular systems have tons of trash because some developers want to make a quick buck to cash in on the popularity of the system.
 
I don't think that game criticism is necessarily "broken." What's broken or problematic IMO is the audience: reviewers are writing for an audience who doesn't want to read. That audience wants a 1000-word review distilled into an "out of 10" score. It's an unfair demand. It puts reviewers in a tough spot, to the extent that they develop complicated rules for scoring that for all their rigor and sophistication don't capture the subtleties of actually reading the damn review. What's worse, the sophistication and concern put into the scores actually confounds their meaning even further.

Hence, arguing numbers like this is so meaningless. The author doesn't explain his data, just presents a bunch of figures. You have to accept the underlying assumption that these numbers mean something to accept his larger argument, and I don't believe there is any meaning--or meaning of significance--there. Instead of glancing at numbers and guessing at their meaning (e.g. did a game score low because it's not fun or because, though enjoyable, it didn't meet lofty expectations?), just read the reviews of a few trusted reviewers and/or CAGs.

IMO analysis such as that found in this article is a reminder of how devoid of value metacritic, gamerankings, etc. are: they sum apples and oranges, take the average, and provide a banana index.
 
I've not noticed games scoring too low on the Wii more often than elsewhere personally.

Mario, Metroid and Zelda all got very good reviews, as did the RE4 port, Zack & Wiki and No More Heroes. There's some lower scores here and there for a couple of those, but for the most part the high quality, traditional games do well. All have "last gen" graphics and yet scored high, so I just don't buy that theory.

Maybe fans of mini-game collections, non-games etc. think those get reviewed too low, but the fact is reviewers are hard core gamers who just aren't in the target casual/non-gamer market these games are made for. So maybe they don't get a fair shake.
 
Count me among those who think the problem is with the reviewers, who tend to give higher score for "hardcore" titles and downgrade casual games. I mean, Wii Sports is unarguably a system-selling title, getting an aggregate review score of 67%, or EGM belittling Endless Ocean as a "non-game" just because it doesn't have bald space marines and titties.

What we really need is a "Casual Gamer Monthly" magazine (or website)...

--R.J.
 
The wii's a great system, I think the problem that the critics have with it s the fact that about 70% of wii games are party games. The wii needs some games with a story.
 
Well, the reason is actually because it is cheaper and easier to develop for the wii than it is on the PS3 for the 360, which means that you get more games like Open Season, Avatar, and licensed kids games. As for the PS3 games being rated higher than the 360 games, I would attribute that to the 360 being out longer, and as a result being plagued by licensed games as well.
 
The aggregate score is so low because of the sheer amounts of crap released for the Wii. It has nothing to do with the Marios, Metroids, and Zeldas. It has everything to do with the Barbie as the Island Princess, Billy the Wizard, Bratz the Movie games. Just go look at the list of Wii games on a comprehensive site. I pulled those from this page:

http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/itemslist/1031,B

All the systems have them. It's just that Wii has more of those games than the other systems.
 
I must admit, I'm surprised to see Wii Play rated so low. It's a $10 game with a modern Duck Hunt. Sure its not Zelda, but I've bought worse for full price (altough not to often thankfully).
 
They should compare a console sales chart to the average reviews chart, money talks more than opinions.

Otherwise, blame the shovelware.
 
I don't think graphics is the true issue here, in fact, I believe it's two-fold:

1. The Wii is the cheapest console to make games for this generation (partially due to graphics but also to other things such as coding (which doesn't stray that far from the GC), and controls (Motion controls are often tacked on in some games, or simply "point and click").

2. That being said, the Wii is the console of choice for newer or "indie" developers who hope to break into the gaming scene, as well as companies hoping to make a quick buck with an "easier to make" ripoff of a movie, tv, etc. (Ex. Cars, Avatar, Open Season, etc.). However, Nintendo has a reputation for being the console where "Only 1st Party Games Succeed", this reputation is only reinforced when you look at this current generation, which is simply stated as:

A Bunch of shitty 3rd Party, Cheaply Made Games vs. A small amount of professionally made 1st Party Games.

It's not that Wii games are bad overall, it has nothing to do with the Wii itself, other than the fact that low production costs attract shitty game developers.

In conclusion, the Wii is not bad by design, it is bad economically in regards to the quality delivered to gamers. In short:

Economical Strengths:
Nintendo Makes Profit on each console sold
Games are $10 less than any other current-gen console
Games are cheaper and easier to make

Economical Weaknesses:
Lower production costs attract more shitty developers, who are already at a disadvantage in the face of 1st party games with a history of excellence. As a result, the gamers lose, but only if they actually by these crappy 3rd party games, otherwise it only serves to bring the average Wii game rating down (as is the result being discussed here).

~HotShotX
 
I've got to disagree with a few points you've made.

1) Wii isn't the cheapest console to make to, that belongs to the 360. You've got to go bare bones here, and not what many top rated games had cost to make (e.g. Bioshock, Gears of War, etc.,). Unless I'm mistaken, licensing and dev kits for the xbox is the cheapest of the current gen. Not to mention, writing for microsoft is far better than the proprietary shit Sony and Nintendo uses. One of the reasons Dreamcast was so popular among developers? Windows CE. Now, I will cede that Gamecube ports are pretty fuck ing cheap to port to the Wii.

2) I'm not seeing the Wii as the choice console for new devs. I've got to say xbox with Live takes that title. Now, I am seeing more unknown Japanese devs using the Wii and DS to break into the American market.

3) The Wii has a larger ratio of crap this generation because of popularity. PS2 had it, PS1 had it, SNES had, Atari owned them all. The more popular you are, the better odds a publisher can sell crap to naive parent/relative hoping to stuff a stocking come Christmas or a giftbag come birthdays - and they know it. I don't think anyone here will go out and buy Ant Bully unless they lost a bet, or it was guaranteed they'd get laid if they did. However, my Mother-in-law purchased American Idol and Boogie. Why? She thought the grandkids would like it.
 
[quote name='Kilraven']I've got to disagree with a few points you've made.

1) Wii isn't the cheapest console to make to, that belongs to the 360. You've got to go bare bones here, and not what many top rated games had cost to make (e.g. Bioshock, Gears of War, etc.,). Unless I'm mistaken, licensing and dev kits for the xbox is the cheapest of the current gen. Not to mention, writing for microsoft is far better than the proprietary shit Sony and Nintendo uses. One of the reasons Dreamcast was so popular among developers? Windows CE. Now, I will cede that Gamecube ports are pretty fuck ing cheap to port to the Wii.[/QUOTE]

I have to disagree with #1, the Wii dev kits cost $2500 to developers who had Gamecube dev kits and developing for the Wii is a extension of the GCN (Gamecube 1.5).

That being said, cheapest is relative once you get past initial costs. The 360 may well be cheaper to develop for given certain constraints.
 
I think the problem is all the garbage budget games. PS3 has very few if any budget games, 360 has a few but the Wii has a lot of them.

Just doing a search on Best Buy I found: Kids Basketball, Kawasaki Jet Ski, Quad Bikes, Kids Soccer, Kids Ice Hockey, some bowling game, game party, spy games elevator, monster trux, dragon blade, board game collection

That's 11 games just released in the past few months (not to mention the ones not on the website), bringing down the review average. A few 1.0 - 3.0's out of 10 can really hurt
 
The problem is two fold as many people have mentioned.

1) The Wii obviously receives a lot of low quality, cheap games because of its low development costs, and large install base.

2) As the article mentions the enthusiast press, IMO, tends to have a narrow view on games. They cater to a very specific consumer that the Wii doesn't cater to. This was recently shown by the refusal by EGM to review endless ocean because it was a "nongame". Dismissing games using arbitrary, rigid definitions of what a game is, is just an example of the disconnect between the gaming press and the Wii.

I think the gaming press puts too much emphasis on presentation and story over gameplay. It's the reason mini-game collections are instantly dismissed as crap, despite quite often having more gameplay variety than the standard cutscene infused game with the "epic" storyline where you watch rather than play.
 
[quote name='foltzie']I must admit, I'm surprised to see Wii Play rated so low. It's a $10 game with a modern Duck Hunt. Sure its not Zelda, but I've bought worse for full price (altough not to often thankfully).[/quote]

Just because it's cheap doesn't mean that half of it isn't inexcusable.

There's a very simple answer to the original question: Most Wii games are shit. What's good is excellent and I'll give the good titles their due but since the development costs on Wii are so low it's where all shovelware goes to die this gen and this collectively drags down game averages.

It would be interesting to see the averages for PS2 and DS as well since their libraries have mountains of shit.
 
[quote name='CombatCraig']Maybe we can draw any debate discussion about game ratings to this thread instead of drowning specific game threads. Just suggesting![/QUOTE]

God bless you and your optimism, sir.

[quote name='cochesecochese']It would be interesting to see the averages for PS2 and DS as well since their libraries have mountains of shit.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. But I don't think this would provide any meaningful data. To quote myself, from the "Worst Game ... Ever?" thread:

It may very well be the worst game ever, but what's interesting is how much ATTENTION all this shovel-ware is getting. I mean, they actually REVIEWED Alvin and MDR, whereas in the past, the licensed crap was just soundly ignored by critics (except for Seanbaby in EGM). So if you head over to Gamerankings and take a look at the 20 Worst Games Ever, they average around a 30% (probably thanks to Play, Maxim, and GamePro), but they're also MUCH higher profile games for the most part, like The Simpsons Skateboarding and American McGee's Bad Day L.A. So things like Rugrats Studio Tour for the Playstation don't even make the "crap" list ... because nobody even bothered to open 'em up.

It's probably also worth mentioning that of the 20 Worst Games Ever, three are on the GC, two on the Xbox, two the 360, one each for the Wii, PS3, DS, GBA, and PC, and eight -- yes, eight -- are on the PS2.
Click to expand...
 
Just out of curiosity, did the game review sites spent time reviewing all the shovelware on the PS2?

--R.J.
 
Sturgeon's Second Law: Ninety percent of everything is crap.

EDIT: It looks like it, but this isn't a double-post. The two posts before this were removed presumably for flame-bait-related-reasons, so now it doesn't make any sense and this explanation is just going on and on and on.
 
[quote name='rjung']Count me among those who think the problem is with the reviewers, who tend to give higher score for "hardcore" titles and downgrade casual games. I mean, Wii Sports is unarguably a system-selling title, getting an aggregate review score of 67%, or EGM belittling Endless Ocean as a "non-game" just because it doesn't have bald space marines and titties.

What we really need is a "Casual Gamer Monthly" magazine (or website)...

--R.J.[/quote]
I do belive this is part of the problem, although as not as much as the shovelware.
 
The Wii has tons of quick cash-in shovelware crap. Look at all the games that got a 1, or 1.5 out of 10 on IGN or Gamespot. The console with the highest install base will always have the most shovelware. Also, the Wii's success was unexpected by many publishers, leading to many quick attempts to cash in on its popularity.

Remember that a game rated a 10, and a game rated a 1, average out to 5. So an 'average' score doesnt mean there arent great games for the system. The ps2 had tons of shovelware, and tons of great games.

Another reason I think that factors in is that games with last gen graphics really have to stand on their gameplay, while many next gen games initially get higher reviews based on that 'wow' factor of hd graphics.
 
[quote name='Puffa469']The Wii has tons of quick cash-in shovelware crap. Look at all the games that got a 1, or 1.5 out of 10 on IGN or Gamespot. The console with the highest install base will always have the most shovelware.[/quote]
Did IGN or Gamespot review all the shovelware on the PS2, then? If not, why does the Wii's dregs deserve the special attention?

--R.J.
 
[quote name='rjung']Did IGN or Gamespot review all the shovelware on the PS2, then? If not, why does the Wii's dregs deserve the special attention?

--R.J.[/quote]

I think when a game is worthy of a 1 out of 10, it deserves a review in order to keep people away from it. Some bad games can be fun, but spending $30 on shovelware shit can easily turn a new Wii owner off from buying any new games.
 
[quote name='rjung']Did IGN or Gamespot review all the shovelware on the PS2, then? If not, why does the Wii's dregs deserve the special attention?

--R.J.[/QUOTE]

No, they didn't. However, I think those sites should review ALL games. After all, I need reviews more on some of the kids games than I do on AAA titles. I don't give a rat's ass what IGN thinks of Twilight Princess or Metroid 3 or SSBB, but I need a little help on some of the "lesser" games like Dewy's Adventure, Carnival Games, and, yes, Billy Broomsticks (hey, you never know, it could have turned out to be a hidden gem). If a game is truly complete garbage (like some of those racing games put out by that one publisher) then I won't even pick it up at $3 or less.
 
[quote name='Puffa469']I think when a game is worthy of a 1 out of 10, it deserves a review in order to keep people away from it.[/quote]
I'm not disagreeing with this, but since most of the truly egregious Wii shovelware began life on the PS2, it's definitely worth asking if the major gaming magazines/site reviewed those as well. Because if they ignored them on the PS2 but reviewed them on the Wii, then it seems like a case of "Let's intentionally find bad Wii games to review so we can bash the system."

--R.J.
 
1) There graphics aren't PS3/Xbox360 level
2) We expect it to be more fun than a PS3/XBox 360 game since gameplay is the emphesis for Wii
3) Developers are lazy and just don't put in as much effort, but want a piece of the Wii $$ pie
 
I agree with everyone else speaking on the shovelware aspect and I do see how people might think the devs are being lazy I would probally buy a GoW clone where I could reload by shaking the controller or something hehe . When will we see more quality games, or more 8 and above, and maybe 10 games?
 
[quote name='rjung']I'm not disagreeing with this, but since most of the truly egregious Wii shovelware began life on the PS2, it's definitely worth asking if the major gaming magazines/site reviewed those as well. Because if they ignored them on the PS2 but reviewed them on the Wii, then it seems like a case of "Let's intentionally find bad Wii games to review so we can bash the system."

--R.J.[/QUOTE]

Ding ding ding! Give the man a cee-gar! I humbly refer you to my (re)post above. Anyone else remember that Ninjabread Man -- the de facto shovel-ware punching bag -- began life on the PS2? No? I rest my case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top