True, but unless you are a conspiracy lunatic, you would know that if a game was rated by like 13 different game critic corporation as being a good game, then it's probably a good game. And when a game is rated bad, then it's probably a bad game.
A game being good is not determined by how high a supposed "critic" ranks it, but itstead by how much fun I'll have while playing it and no imaginary number can accurately describe that.Nor can it accurately describe how someone else will like the game. That only works if said person does a bit of research and looks up gameplay footage or something. The rating system is flawed for a lot of reasons.
- It tries to grade various aspects of games according to some sort of "objective" scale
- It puts the opinion of a "critic" (which is all it is really) above the opinion of the average consumer
- It's horribly unbalanced. Most new games get a 7 or an 8 at the very least. And besides, is a 83 point game better than an 82? Why? Just a random review score gives no insight.
And just to leave two presents:
this and
that.
Gj. As example you gave me 3 mario games, one violent game that does not reflect the Wii as Resident Evil games are usually made for other consols and a zelda game which was with Nitendo even before the Wii so it's not really a Wii exclusive. And I never said there was only bad games on the Wii.
The point wasn't Wii Exclusives or if the Wii has good games.
The point was proving that the Wii has plenty of games that can be played for hours AND alone. So Gj to you for missing the point.
As example you gave me 3 mario games,
Smash Brothers isn't even a Mario game to begin with.
one violent game that does not reflect the Wii as Resident Evil games are usually made for other consols
Which is exactly why I chose it. A game one could play for a few hours and even alone too. What a shock.
and a zelda game which was with Nitendo even before the Wii so it's not really a Wii exclusive
So? It's quite a lenghty game, which once again, you can spend several hours on.
But just to add to the list a little to further prove my point:
Arc Rise Fantasia
Castlevania Judgment
Castlevania: The Adventure ReBirth
Contra ReBirth
Donkey Kong Country Returns
Epic Mickey
Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: My Life as a Darklord
Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: My Life as a King
Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: The Crystal Bearers
Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn
Kirby's Epic Yarn
Klonoa (video game)
The Last Story
Metroid Prime 3: Corruption
Metroid Prime: Trilogy
Metroid: Other M
Monster Hunter Tri
No More Heroes
No More Heroes 2: Desperate Struggle
Red Steel
Red Steel 2
Punch-Out!!
Sin & Punishment: Star Successor
Sonic and the Black Knight
Sonic and the Secret Rings
Super Paper Mario
Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World
Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars
Trauma Center: New Blood
Trauma Center: Second Opinion
Trauma Team
Xenoblade Chronicles
Zack & Wiki: Quest for Barbaros' Treasure
If you do not understand what i meant, then don't bother anymore.
Scary. I sure got it. Doesn't make it not a contradiction though.
Saying that although it's opinion, I base it on technical aspects of games, and so do critics.
Technical aspects mean precisely nothing. I'm fairly sure, if any "critic" would have reviewed Minecraft last year, they would've pointed out it's lack of story and goals (not to mention the graphics) as a negative and lowered the supposed objective score because of it.
A game could have the best technical aspects and still bore you to sleep. Reviewers never take this into proper consideration though.
