Slashdot Mirror

The final nail in the coffin is that SEGA's first party development teams were just kind of bad at their jobs.

I beg to differ, Segas 1st party titles during the Dreamcast era were at the top of their game and produced titles and franchises that are STILL making them money re-selling on different platforms as many of them have become cult-classics. Crazy Taxi, House of the Dead 2, Jet Set Radio, Panzer Dragoon, Virtual On OT, Space Channel 5, Chu Chu Rocket, Shenmue, etc. Even their flagship driving game Metropolis Street Racer when on to spawn 4 sequels in the Form of Project Gotham Racing and was the Xbox's flagship driving game until Microsoft introduced Forza.

The Sonic games released on the Dreamcast were actually rated fairly well and fairly well received by fans. Most consider them to be the first 3D Sonic titles made by Sega that didn't suck.
Sonic Adventure on GameRankings scores an 86: http://www.gamerankings.com/dr...
Sonic Adventure 2 scores an 89 on MetaCritic: http://www.metacritic.com/game...

I agree that a WiiU will be a better value for the future, and there are lots of Wii games (and a few WiiU games) for the time being. Check the all-time best Wii games on GameRankings, then you can look up videos and reviews for family-friendly games that make the list until you have the library you want. Some of the older games should be well-priced at this point too.

Also Nintendo TVii isn't to be overlooked. It's been delayed but you can find some interesting info about it on the internet.

I'm all for bashing KoA because of the DRM, but a lot of people (myself included) actually liked the game. It has excellent action RPG combat and a gigantic world to explore with hundreds of quests to complete. Yes, the average rating wasn't in the 90% range, but most of the reviews were legitimately decent. If it weren't for the dick move on the DRM, I think a lot of people here might actually like this game.

I haven't seen a decent Wii game since MP3

The Wii doesn't have quite as many block-buster titles as the PS3 or 360, but it seems as though you've been hiding under a rock since 2007. See: http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?site=wii

This is in opposition of the far inferior Heavy Metal 2000, which was one long plot.

But they did make a pretty good sequel to the movie as a gameâ"Heavy Metal FAKK 2. It scored quiet well, and was available for Linux, Mac & Windows.

Let's say what gamerankings says:
Final Fantasy XIV: 51.43%
Daikatana: 54.08%

That's a "throw it in the garbage bin and start over" rating.

Let's say what gamerankings says:
Final Fantasy XIV: 51.43%
Daikatana: 54.08%

That's a "throw it in the garbage bin and start over" rating.

I also use http://www.gamerankings.com/ to read various scores, reviews, etc.

The Xbox (orig or extra 360 crispy) didn't provide a comparable experience to PC's *when it was released*, let alone today.

Completely agree. Consider the list of the top 10 games from the last year from Gamerankings (after removing duplicates):

• Super Mario Galaxy 2
• Uncharted 2: Among Thieves
• Mass Effect 2
• Fallout 3: Game of the Year Edition
• Red Dead Redemption
• LittleBigPlanet: Game of the Year Edition
• Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
• Batman: Arkham Asylum
• God of War III
• Braid

Of those games, 8 are on PS3, 6 on Xbox 360 and 5 on PC. Of the games which were released for PC, every single one is available on Xbox 360 and the PC is the only gaming platform without an exclusive. So yeah, it seems the PC does not provide a comparable experience.

Pretty sure that's called Wolfenstien, and your too late, Activision already wreaked the crap out of that.

http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/930284-wolfenstein/index.html

Ah, ET how I miss you... oh wait I guess I can still go play that... sweet!

Attention every IP holder looking to create licensed games: the reason this worked is that the game was truly excellent. (PC 90, Xbox 88 http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?search=chronicles+of+riddick&numrev=3&site=)

Bad games suck long-term value out of the IP and into short-term profits; great games add enduring value to the IP. I've made games with licensed IP before, and I'm almost certain to do so again, so I care about this sinking in. There are lots of reasons that movie games are usually poor, but one of the biggest is that the license holders think that the added value of the license will make up for a rushed job*. The license will sucker some people into buying, but there's a big cost to that. Please, Hollywood, find a way to work with us so that we can both make great product. There's more fun (and more money) for everyone that way.

*Why is the job rushed you ask? That's the biggest problem with movie games - differing production cycles. Movies have a really long pre-prod with ~3 guys on it, followed by production in something like 1 yr. Games (good, big, AAA ones) want around 6 months pre-prod with ~10 (plus ideally engine dev with 10-20). Then it's 18-24 months of full production, and you can see where the problem comes in. Especially when the game usually needs to wait to design key assets/areas until they can see what the movie is doing.

Nope. I'm with you.

Walk around in trashed faux 1920s underwater cavern... kill zombie... find key... kill zombie... listen to over the top voice acting... kill zombie... kill zombie... kill zombie... kill big daddy... kill zombie... find key... kill zombie...

I thought the first game was nice to look at, had an interesting background plot compared to most games, but was pretty damn average to play. The fps combat was decidedly mediocre, and it felt like there were two or three types of enemies in the whole game. The fact that half the plot was coveyed via audio diaries and the like rather than, say, actual events and characters also detracted from it.

Bioshock 1 was where I knew that the video games reviewing industry really was rotten to the core. Fourth best PC game of all time my arse.

Not all of us want to buy a Wii for the couple games on it that are actually worthwhile.

It's ok, you don't have to diss the Wii to be cool any more. Or do you not even know what games are available? Every single one of the games in that top 10 list is fantastic and worth owning. To be fair, if you have Metroid Prime Trilogy then you don't need MP3, but there are more games than just those that are good, and many of them aren't available on any other platform. And if good games aren't enough, you should also buy the Wii for its homebrew scene, which is much better than what's available for the PS3 and 360. Playing the original Quake with the wiimote is awesome.

Not all of us want to buy a Wii for the couple games on it that are actually worthwhile.

It's ok, you don't have to diss the Wii to be cool any more. Or do you not even know what games are available? Every single one of the games in that top 10 list is fantastic and worth owning. To be fair, if you have Metroid Prime Trilogy then you don't need MP3, but there are more games than just those that are good, and many of them aren't available on any other platform. And if good games aren't enough, you should also buy the Wii for its homebrew scene, which is much better than what's available for the PS3 and 360. Playing the original Quake with the wiimote is awesome.

I say, publisher followed simple supply/demand law

I don't think you understand economics. By all means, let WotC follow the law of Supply and Demand. All digital files are essentially infinite. The intersection of infinite supply with any demand, is at the price point of free.

As far as being customer goes, simple calculation of buck-per-hour should show you how much value you get.

It looks like you really are ignorant of economics. Value and price are two totally separate issues. Price is how much the buyer needs to pay to acquire the item, Value is how much the buyer is willing to pay. Only an idiot would pay more than he values, but everyone will pay less than they value it if given the opportunity. At best, that calculation will only tell the buyer a maximum amount he is willing to pay. However, determining value based on the number of hours has got to be one of the most simplistic and stupid ideas out there. If I'm traveling from San Diego to New York, should I pay more to drive or to fly? Should I pay more for the game Portal, or for Fury? Should I pay more for Gigli (121 minutes) or for Citizen Kane (119 minutes)?

How the hell is the parent flamebait?

Overstated points or invented points ("long load times and shitty online play") by an Anonymous Coward? How could it notbe? Normally I don't respond to trolls, but you managed to get upmodded and an educational opportunity is at hand.

LBP is a lot more than a tech demo. You don't get praise and scores like that from tech demos. I play it regularly, and so do my kids, and it's fun. And no, the physics is quite good. As to user-made levels - sure, there's a lot of crap, but since there's already more than 100,000 user-created levels, only a tiny percentage need to be good to make it worthwhile... and in my experience the percentage isn't all that tiny, plus the ranking system's gotten to the point where it's easy to find good levels. (My 8-year-old loved "Little Dead Space". :-> ) People who have no affection or affinity for side-scrollers won't like it. But then, people who don't like FPS won't like Halo. Oy. Of course, there's been a concerted effort by fanboys of other platforms to slam it, so at least you're not alone.

I'm not an RPG guy, so I can't comment on Valkyria Chronicles, but a lotta people seem to like it, though it's also not everyone's cup of tea.

Mirror's Edge? I found the demo fresh and interesting, but again, ultimately not my cup of tea. And yes, like Rock Band it's available for more than one platform... but if you have a PS3, why not?

Let's give you full credit and state that the PS3 version of Rock Band is a "port". Heaven forfend! What problems, exactly and specifically, does this lead to? You only mentioned PS2 and Wii issues, and while I'm sure they're fascinating and all, they're kind of irrelevant to the PS3.

I've got Singstar 'cause my wife likes to sing and she's good at it. Now the PS2 discs work with the PS3, too, and we can buy songs off the "Singstore". Sure, there's "Lips", which is apparently all right, but if you're worried about ports, then clones should terrify you...

The 360's initially cheaper than the PS3 (though that's in both senses of the term, unfortunately) and has a bigger library. No question. The Wii outsells both, and is more open to casual gamers than either. There are reasons why the PS3 might not be the best choice for everyone, but neither you nor the parent hit on any of 'em.

1. In the next year, PS2 will become less relevant than it currently is. At some point, nobody will care if it can play PS2 games.
2. They cut the hardware price by $241.50. The cost of a new PS2 is $129. The money saved could almost by two PS2s.

They're still releasing new PS2 games. If you go to Game Rankings right now, the top game on the main page is Persona 4 for... Playstation 2.

This used to be a source of pride for Sony - look at how well we support our platform, we're still releasing top-quality games for it 8 years after it came out, and 2 years after it's "replacement" was released. According to good old Wikipedia, it's the top-selling console ever, at 140 million. Now they're actively removing that platform of games from their current product? Taking steps away from compatibility with it? Sure, eventually it will become less relevant, but I think it's gonna take a while. If we jump over to a DRM-related story, you'll find long threads complaining about "what happens if I buy this game, and 5 years from now their servers get shut down, or the company goes away? I still play my old computer games once in a while, I don't want them taking that away from me..." Forget Persona 4 just being released, aren't there people who will want to play Final Fantasy X or XII again? Kingdom Hearts? Gran Turismo 3 (wow, 14 million copies sold, really?).

Yes, as you say, we can just buy a PS 2, or keep an existing one. But there's plenty of reasons that's a pain (inputs, controllers, and space mostly) and it's just a big visible step backwards for the product. And cost alone doesn't justify that, the $240 cut isn't all from the Emotion Engine, and if you check the eBay listings for 60 Gig PS3s, you'll see how much of a premium their customers are willing to pay for that feature. I'm one of those people - and there's plenty of others in this thread - stuck between buying a new one and keeping my old PS2, buying an old one off eBay for a premium price, or waiting and hoping Sony steps up instead of down with a future revision. In the meantime, I'm one more customer not buying a PS3, even with their modest price cuts.

> [stuff about how DRM is slowing Spore sales]

Riiight. It's either that, or Spore just isn't nearly as fun as one would expect it to be from all the hype. You apparently bought into it, but not everyone did.

He uninstalled a mediocre, at best, third-person shooter. I agree with the start of the thread, Gears of War wasn't even a good game.

You know, I originally thought I was just going to reply and say that we disagree and both our opinions are valid. But instead I've decided to actually disprove what you are saying.

It's a third-person shooter (and that in itself is bad)

False. http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/942000.asp and http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/gearsofwar both show high marks, ~87%, with the X360 version getting even higher scores. Even Gamespot gave it an 8.7. So, unless the entire community of game critics is crazy, being a third-person shooter is not, in itself, bad.

absolutely nothing fun

False. Over 5 million copies worldwide, including 1 for me, and I know I had fun.

Why the article spent so much time fawning over Epic's worst game is beyond me.

False. See also, One Must Fall: 2097.

gg. Feel free to tell me you didn't like it, but don't tell me it's bad because you can't figure out how to look over someone's shoulder.

You should try to find or torrent Black Dahlia. I don't feel like posting a full description when there are much better ways of getting that, but this old-school adventure game with FMV and REAL ACTORS (when did they stop doing that) puts you in a film noir detective role with an interesting story. The game is pretty hard and it's not exactly like Police Quest, but well worth it! (And not very well-known.)

...and even they subject us to a shovelware title like F-Zero GX...

Funny you should mention that since Sega actually developed it. NOT funny that you could actually call it shovelware. That was an incredible title and I wasn't the only one who thought so. IMO it was by far the best F-Zero and no other games in the futuristic racing genre - or whatever you want to call it - could touch it. Personally, I hope Nintendo has already knocked on Sega's door to get a sequel on Wii with online play.

PC version reviews:

GameRankings.com:
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/935227.asp?q=precipice

Metacritic:
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/pennyarcadeadventuresepisode1?q=precipice

Oh yeah, meant to add this to my last post.

Bladestorm is at least different, and oddly addictive.

You're holding up Bladestorm as a model of uniqueness? It's just fucking Dynasty Warriors set in Europe rather than China (or Japan, like Samurai Warriors). It's got a few new gameplay mechanics, but so do most of the other titles you derided.

If you like Bladestorm, great. More power to you, it's great that you found a game you can like. It's just a little hypocritical to claim that many of the other games are not worth your time because they're just the same old thing you've already played, but Bladestorm's not. Choose not to play Halo, Metroid, Mario, etc because you don't enjoy the games, or you have no interest in the story, or even because you're too "1337" to play the same games as us plebs (though in that case I'd expect you to extoll the virtues of indie developers, which so far you haven't). But stop claiming that you only like stuff that's "new" when it's patently obvious that's not true.

So I ask again, what exactly are you looking for from games? From a broad perspective, there's nothing new in games. Even something novel like Guitar Hero (itself suffering from sequelitis) was nothing really new. DDR with a guitar, yawn. But wait, not even DDR was unique! NES Track and Field but with dancing, yawn.

There's value in doing things well even if you're not ground-breaking. For example, Halo 3 is a very solid shooter with fun online play and a conclusion to a story that many of us have been following for 6 years. It may not add anything to the FPS genre directly, but that doesn't mean it's not worth playing. As another example, compare Oblivion (valid because the Game of the Year edition released this year) and Two Worlds. On the surface, they're pretty much identical -- medievel-ish PC-style RPGs with wide open worlds. Oblivion, despite being a sequel (4th of the Elder Scrolls RPGs), was great. It ran well, felt solid, had a great story, and truly benefited from the Elder Scrolls mythos. Two Worlds, on the other hand, was essentially a piece of crap (didn't stop me from enjoying it, though :). It had massive performance issues, quest-breaking bugs, horrible voice acting, and flawed controls. If you're just looking superficially, you'll dismiss both because they're just "Ultima with a modern graphical veneer, yawn," and in the process you'd miss out on the excellent game that was Oblivion. Of course you'd also miss out on the crapfest of Two Worlds, so that's not too bad :).

Forza, GT5? Racing again. -yawn- Last racing games I truly enjoyed were F-Zero and JetMoto. Guess why? They were -different- and new. The sequels sucked.

Obviously you're not the target audience for Forza or Gran Turismo, and that's fine. I take it you enjoy more arcade-style racers, in which case it'd be a shame for you to write of game series like Wipeout just because F-Zero did it first.

So I ask again, what exactly are you looking for from games? From a broad perspective, there's nothing new in games. Even something novel like Guitar Hero (itself suffering from sequelitis) was nothing really new. DDR with a guitar, yawn. But wait, not even DDR was unique! NES Track and Field but with dancing, yawn.

There's value in doing things well even if you're not ground-breaking. For example, Halo 3 is a very solid shooter with fun online play and a conclusion to a story that many of us have been following for 6 years. It may not add anything to the FPS genre directly, but that doesn't mean it's not worth playing. As another example, compare Oblivion (valid because the Game of the Year edition released this year) and Two Worlds. On the surface, they're pretty much identical -- medievel-ish PC-style RPGs with wide open worlds. Oblivion, despite being a sequel (4th of the Elder Scrolls RPGs), was great. It ran well, felt solid, had a great story, and truly benefited from the Elder Scrolls mythos. Two Worlds, on the other hand, was essentially a piece of crap (didn't stop me from enjoying it, though :). It had massive performance issues, quest-breaking bugs, horrible voice acting, and flawed controls. If you're just looking superficially, you'll dismiss both because they're just "Ultima with a modern graphical veneer, yawn," and in the process you'd miss out on the excellent game that was Oblivion. Of course you'd also miss out on the crapfest of Two Worlds, so that's not too bad :).

Forza, GT5? Racing again. -yawn- Last racing games I truly enjoyed were F-Zero and JetMoto. Guess why? They were -different- and new. The sequels sucked.

Obviously you're not the target audience for Forza or Gran Turismo, and that's fine. I take it you enjoy more arcade-style racers, in which case it'd be a shame for you to write of game series like Wipeout just because F-Zero did it first.

I'd say that http://www.gamerankings.com/ has a pretty definitive answer to the question on its front page, since its an average of very many professional reviews and not just some guy's opinion.

(Hint, second highest rated game of all time... if that doesn't earn it game of the year I don't know what could.)

Recently PCG received 99% of the 'exclusive xyz' content and a large amount of advertising $ from Flagship/EA in the run up to the release of Hellgate:London.

In an unlikely turn of events PCG gave HG:L the highest score of all major review sites, 20% higher than the average and fully 35% higher than it deserved on release day.

Odd how that kinda shit happens huh?

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages4/927136.asp

I've been trying to buy the Wii version for the kids; as far as I can tell, they've succeeded.

If you've been trying to buy Rock the 80s for Wii, you've got a much longer wait than you think. That game was only released on PS2.

Yeah the PSP though having the best graphics around was illfated so far.

Everybody always talks about graphics not being important when discussing consoles (why the Wii doesn't do HD, for example), but then miss that the most applicable place for that argument is on portables. Who cares if the PSP has the best graphics? That just means it'll suck down more battery power, and I have to squint harder to see the relatively tiny screen (yes, I know the PSP has a huge screen, but it's nowhere as big as a 50" DLP).

I mean on what other system can you take Grand Theft Auto with you! It is a very grown up Portable in that term.

Gameboy Color? GBA?

I bought the PSP when the PS3 got into my grasp. Both just seem perfect together as sadly both aren't as fast going forward. There are quality in both that need time to work out! But when good stuff comes out on it it is heavenly good!

How much longer is the PSP going to need? They've already had 3 years. There are good titles and bad titles, but I still haven't found anything to make me really want to buy a PSP. I do love my DS, though.

Yeah the PSP though having the best graphics around was illfated so far.

Everybody always talks about graphics not being important when discussing consoles (why the Wii doesn't do HD, for example), but then miss that the most applicable place for that argument is on portables. Who cares if the PSP has the best graphics? That just means it'll suck down more battery power, and I have to squint harder to see the relatively tiny screen (yes, I know the PSP has a huge screen, but it's nowhere as big as a 50" DLP).

I mean on what other system can you take Grand Theft Auto with you! It is a very grown up Portable in that term.

Gameboy Color? GBA?

I bought the PSP when the PS3 got into my grasp. Both just seem perfect together as sadly both aren't as fast going forward. There are quality in both that need time to work out! But when good stuff comes out on it it is heavenly good!

How much longer is the PSP going to need? They've already had 3 years. There are good titles and bad titles, but I still haven't found anything to make me really want to buy a PSP. I do love my DS, though.

Yeah the PSP though having the best graphics around was illfated so far.

Everybody always talks about graphics not being important when discussing consoles (why the Wii doesn't do HD, for example), but then miss that the most applicable place for that argument is on portables. Who cares if the PSP has the best graphics? That just means it'll suck down more battery power, and I have to squint harder to see the relatively tiny screen (yes, I know the PSP has a huge screen, but it's nowhere as big as a 50" DLP).

I mean on what other system can you take Grand Theft Auto with you! It is a very grown up Portable in that term.

Gameboy Color? GBA?

I bought the PSP when the PS3 got into my grasp. Both just seem perfect together as sadly both aren't as fast going forward. There are quality in both that need time to work out! But when good stuff comes out on it it is heavenly good!

How much longer is the PSP going to need? They've already had 3 years. There are good titles and bad titles, but I still haven't found anything to make me really want to buy a PSP. I do love my DS, though.

Odama?

Though I seem to recall the reviews being somewhat inconsistent with regard to the voice commands actually working.

Odama used it pretty extensively, though the recognition wasn't always that great if reviews are to be trusted.

Nothing beats getting your hands on a demo and actually playing the game. I won't even buy most games unless there's a playable demo (try before you buy). I only visit a couple game related websites, such as GameRankings, Metacritic and Yahtzee's reviews at The Escapist. Any other game info I need I will check out the Wikipedia entry (for release dates, etc).

I used to get game magazines 5-10 years ago mainly for the demo discs and articles about upcoming games, but with the internet, game magazines are pretty much dead. Review sites like IGN and Gamespot are also useless to me when I can just visit GameRankings and see all the scores compiled in one place.

Don't forget, for video games, there's also Game Rankings.

Not true. Guitar Hero III just came out for xBox360, PS3, and the Wii.

Really? Because last I checked, the release date was supposed to be sometime near the end of October. It's even too early for stores to break the release date, since they can't possibly have the game in stock yet more than a month before the release.

I'll rent it, but the critical consensus seems pretty clear. I've taken some chances with some pretty iffy games (Shadowrun, I'm looking at you), but this one's just not a buy.

The Wii isn't getting equivalent gameplay. It's getting better gameplay.

Deal with it.

Check out Viewtiful Joe. It's a fun throwback to the 2D side-scrollers of the past.

XBox is made by Sony or Nintendo? News to me.

And I'm pissed that I can only play Zelda on Nintendo products and Halo on Microsoft products...

Since when does Sega make the PSP?

Dude. It's not a great game. It's a piece of crap with absolutely awesome graphics. I mean, the game has an average ratio of 58% on gamerankings.com.

Now, I will admit that I have only played the demo (which is great to impress your friends with, by the way), but the thing is virtually unplayable. You spend most of the time trying to hit invisible enemies that hit at you from off camera. How this game ever got into production is beyond me - I guess Sony needed to fill the shelves with something.

If the PS3 were the only console I had, I guess I would have been forced to buy it. In this case, I might have played it for a bit (I might also have cut open my wrists, which seems like a good alternative to playing Genji). Maybe I would have got used to the camera and all the invisible enemies beating the living crap out of me. However, I have to wonder why in the world I would want to go through this learning curve if it is so freaking annoying. What in the world posessed you when you decided to play this game for more than five minutes?

We already have a list of the top 100 games. (We pretty much have a top 100 list for top 100 games lists at this point.) Here are the top 100 games as voted by players at Gamerankings.com. Most of the titles on this list show up on the one in TFA.

Top 100 games by user vote @ Gamerankings.com

(Caveats: there is some duplication across platforms; the list only shows titles with at least 50 votes.)

I, for one, loved the first Sonic Adventure. It seems to catch a lot of flak these days, but remember that it got excellent reviews in its time.

That said, I can understand why fans of old school Sonic did not like the new direction of the series, even if it was quite well executed, and I readily admit that Sonic Adventure 2, Heores, etc. were less fun. I have high hopes for this new title - the change in genre doesn't bother me at all.

Now I like this guy, but he no longer has a job... anywhere.

Sorry people this is sadly the way the world works now and it sucks ass. Advertisers always get a good score, and everyone gets good stores unless you totally fuck up. Go to http://www.gamerankings.com/ http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/sites.asp average scores from some of these sites are jokes. Yet people continue to claim that 5 is average? BS.

But even more than that, I recently felt like checking out old Xbox games so I went to http://xbox.ign.com/index/reviews.html?constraint. floor.article.overall_rating=9&constraint.return_a ll=is_true&sort.attribute=article.overall_rating&s ort.order=desc this link which is all the 9s and above for the Xbox. If you've played most of these games you'll know they are in no way 9s or at least not as high as they are given.

A friend mentioned a good idea as a way to solve this, find a way to get reviews for games written 20 years after the game comes out, to see if the game really does stand the test of time, because otherwise you get this overly biased bullshit where advertising dollars affect the review scores.

The bottom line I've found is every review site and magazine is biased. It's just the simple fact of life that we have to understand when seeking out reviews and articles.

Now I like this guy, but he no longer has a job... anywhere.

Sorry people this is sadly the way the world works now and it sucks ass. Advertisers always get a good score, and everyone gets good stores unless you totally fuck up. Go to http://www.gamerankings.com/ http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/sites.asp average scores from some of these sites are jokes. Yet people continue to claim that 5 is average? BS.

But even more than that, I recently felt like checking out old Xbox games so I went to http://xbox.ign.com/index/reviews.html?constraint. floor.article.overall_rating=9&constraint.return_a ll=is_true&sort.attribute=article.overall_rating&s ort.order=desc this link which is all the 9s and above for the Xbox. If you've played most of these games you'll know they are in no way 9s or at least not as high as they are given.

A friend mentioned a good idea as a way to solve this, find a way to get reviews for games written 20 years after the game comes out, to see if the game really does stand the test of time, because otherwise you get this overly biased bullshit where advertising dollars affect the review scores.

The bottom line I've found is every review site and magazine is biased. It's just the simple fact of life that we have to understand when seeking out reviews and articles.

Minigames are great as a free pack in game to show off what the system can do, but shes not going to pay for a minigame collection.

Have either of you ever played the GBA or DS Warioware games? Yes, it's a collection of 5-second minigames, but the whole is quite a bit more than the sum of its parts. While in general I would agree about not paying for a bunch of mini games (why I won't buy any Mario Party title, Fuzion Frenzy, etc), Warioware is a special case. Especially since it's also a great demo of what can be done with the Wiimote, from "normal" uses like "remote control" to really whacky uses like "the elephant". You can take a look through the manual, but it's really worth playing the game. If nothing else, consider renting it.

She was a big ssx fan on last gen systems and had high hopes for the wii version of that, but it only got mediocre reviews. Her dad is a golfer and liked toying around with wii sports golf, so I kept my eye on wii tiger woods but that didn't get reviewed all that well either.

If I may make a suggestion, you really ought to at least rent some of the Wii games you're interested in. I get the feeling that reviewers haven't quite grasped how to review Wii games yet (for example, Warioware has an average 82% rating over at GameRankings, but to me it's a much better game than 82% represents). Reviewers might start to "get it" in the coming months, but in the meantime you're really going to have to play the games yourself to make an informed opinion.

Age of Empires for the DS got pretty good rankings.

You sound like you come from a typical shitty pc developer like Bethesda.

You sound like you come from a typical shitty pc developer like Bethesda.