The Wii sucks!

[Canuck]

Well the games do anyways.  Kotaku had this article about the averages of many of the past game consoles' scores averaged out.  I suspect the exact same thing about the DS as well. Nice to see the much maligned PS3 right up there at the top

[TiLT]

I hate it when people who have no knowledge of how a graph works try to create one to illustrate a point. The chart at the top of that article isn't only worthless, it's actually misleading. Here, let me try to steer the discussion in the right direction before everyone makes faulty assumptions:

Average Review Scores:
------------------------
PS3: 73%
GC: 71%
Xbox: 71%
360: 70%
PS2: 69%
Wii: 64%



It suddenly doesn't look so alarming now, does it? There's less than a 10% difference between the highest average (the PS3) and the lowest average (the Wii), yet the graph tries to make it look like the average PS3 review score is more than TRIPLE that of the average Wii score. The article author would have received an F- if he tried to hand this in to a statistics teacher.

There, got that out of my system. Now onto the topic at hand:

Out of all the consoles listed in that graph, the Wii is the most different from the others, and developers have been stumbling a bit while they try to figure out how to best use it, and what their real target audiences are. This has resulted in some less than stellar (read: crap) games. That's to be expected. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

My personal opinion is that the Wii has more *good* games than the PS3 does at the moment. The reason the average is pulled down is because there's a larger quantity of truly crappy titles for the Wii than for the PS3, which represents a gaming style and audience that game developers are already quite familiar with. That's the weakness of averages, which is one of the reasons you should never base yourself on them alone.

[Canuck]

I don't see anywhere in my post where I said that the PS3 has 3 times the number of good games.  I know how graphs are used to skew peoples beliefs-you see it on commercials all the time.  What that chart tells me is that the Wii is below every other console and that it's averaging a 6.4 which in the videogame ranking system = FAIL.

[TiLT]

I don't see anywhere in my post where I said that the PS3 has 3 times the number of good games.  I know how graphs are used to skew peoples beliefs-you see it on commercials all the time.  What that chart tells me is that the Wii is below every other console and that it's averaging a 6.4 which in the videogame ranking system = FAIL.

It wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at the author of the original article. I apologize if I made it sound like I was attacking you.

[Eduardo X]

I think what that chart shows more than anything is that less games = better games.

[Destructor]

What that chart tells me is that the Wii is below every other console and that it's averaging a 6.4 which in the videogame ranking system = FAIL.

That's because (as already said) there are quite a few utter and TOTAL tripe games on the Wii right now. Games that get a 1 out of 10 because the site's score ranking CAN'T go any lower. Where the developer didn't even think about trying to make a decent game - they just slapped motion controls on a PS2 game (or in some cases, a Flash game) and released it to market.

Visit here and take a look at the games on the absolute bottom. This is why the average score is so low - quite a few games in the 'didn't give a damn and didn't try' category.

[denoginizer]

I think what that chart shows more than anything is that less games = better games.

Agreed.  I think the most important statistic is which platform has the most highly rated individual titles.  People don't buy systems because they have the fewest crappy games. 

[Misguided]

Wii game reviewers suck as much or more than the games do.
Example: average score for Wii Sports 76%.

There are some excellent titles on Wii.
I'd venture to say that proportion has improved lately too.

[jblank]

Wii game reviewers suck as much or more than the games do.
Example: average score for Wii Sports 76%.

There are some excellent titles on Wii.
I'd venture to say that proportion has improved lately too.

I think thats justified honestly. Wii Sports is basically a demo of the motion controls. There is little depth to the title, you can bowl a few frames, hit a few balls on Golf, and then..........

It was ok, and was the game I played the most when I had mine, but Wii Sports isn't that great.

*Disclaimer - I can't stand the system, hate it in fact, view it as a serious step backwards in gaming, and have no desire to ever own one again, so maybe I am just a tick biased* 

[IkeVandergraaf]

Here's the problem though, TiLT.  Most reviewers actually use the 6-9 scale rather than the entire 0-10.  That makes the Kotaku graph more relevant.

[Misguided]

Wii game reviewers suck as much or more than the games do.
Example: average score for Wii Sports 76%.

There are some excellent titles on Wii.
I'd venture to say that proportion has improved lately too.

I think thats justified honestly. Wii Sports is basically a demo of the motion controls. There is little depth to the title, you can bowl a few frames, hit a few balls on Golf, and then..........

It was ok, and was the game I played the most when I had mine, but Wii Sports isn't that great.

*Disclaimer - I can't stand the system, hate it in fact, view it as a serious step backwards in gaming, and have no desire to ever own one again, so maybe I am just a tick biased* 

Fair enough (on being biased). As for Wii Sports, I'll quote Bill Harris from November 6, 2007:
"The reviews for Wii games that are primarily a single-player experience have been much more accurate overall, so it's not that reviewers hate the Wii. They just aren't playing the "party games" in the context in which they're meant to be played."

and March 15, 2007:
"Third-party publishers will sell huge amounts of Wii games if those games are play. Wii Sports was play, and we all understood that, even if most reviewers didn't. What's happened so far, though, is that a bunch of games have been rushed to the Wii with shoddy graphics and lousy support for the controller. With few exceptions, they're not very good. Those games won't sell, nor should they."

Examples:

Wii Sports 76%
Game Party 31%
Mario Party 8 64%
Mario & Sonic at the Olympics 67%
Carnival Games 58%

All of these games have been hugely popular at retail and the people that buy them
LIKE them. Many game reviewers seem to not be in touch with the pulse of people
buying Wii games. The same can be said for a lot of DS reviews as well.

[Teggy]

It's well known that Nintendo has seriously slacked off when it comes quality control for games on their systems - they took the word "quality" off the the Nintendo seal, after all.  There is a ton of shovelware out  for the DS and Wii.  There are great games for both systems, but it doesn't take a statistical analysis to know there is also a lot of crap - just look at the shelf at Gamestop. I would like it if Nintendo was a little more stringent with what they let on their platforms, but any smart gamer should do their homework before buying a game, so it really doesn't matter to me.

[kathode]

  Armchair statistical analysis makes my eye twitch.  The zoomed view is really deceptive, and it's highly unlikely that even a 3% difference is statistically (or even practically) significant.  His sample also isn't random, which introduces all kinds of potential biases.  I don't think you can draw a lot of solid conclusions from this info.  I think about the best you could say is that "review scores in general seem to cluster around the 70 point mark."

[wonderpug]

Before we carry our torches and pitchforks to the Kotaku mansion on top of the hill, the graph came from next-gen.

There's a slightly better one that limits itself to the top 10% of each library:



If you read the article, the author's message isn't "the Wii Sucks," it's "what's with the low review scores?"  His conclusion points to games like Carnival Games which sold very well and was well liked despite its 59% range reviews.

[Jag]

My problem with the Wii is I absolutely hate even the titles that people rave about like Metroid and Zelda. I bought both on the hype and ended up selling them even after giving them a fairly decent amount of play time. I also can't get into Mario Galaxy, so it just may be that i'm not cut out for console gaming. My experience with the Wii has seriously scared me from taking the plunge with either an Xbox or PS3.

[wonderpug]

I guess it depends on what you didn't like about Metroid, Zelda, and Mario, but the big difference between the Wii and the PS3/360 (especially the 360) is the size of the libraries.  You've got a much better chance of finding your kind of games when you can choose from more than 7 titles.

[Knightshade Dragon]

"what's with the low review scores?"

Cave drawing graphics by way of comparison, sloppy and rushed ports, horrific online approach, and lack of precision controls in many games is what leads to lower scores.  Games that do it well (love em or hate em) like Zelda and Metroid knock it out of the park.  Even the aforementioned Carnival Games had great controls. 

[TiLT]

Here's the problem though, TiLT.  Most reviewers actually use the 6-9 scale rather than the entire 0-10.  That makes the Kotaku graph more relevant.

Your basic argument is true, but you're using it in a situation where it doesn't apply. Games vary in scores from 1-10 even if most end up at around 7, which is *exactly* why the Wii scores slightly lower than the other consoles (look at the summary of Wii review scores linked to earlier in this thread for proof). If only scores in the 6-10 range were to be counted, I strongly suspect the Wii would rank a lot higher than it currently does compared to other consoles. The basic problem here is that the graphs presented in the original article aren't presented in a way that can be used to argue for anything, which makes them worthless. Trying to justify the values doesn't hide the fact that the graphs are vastly out of scale and will, to most people, give a very biased perspective of the real numbers behind it.

Disclaimer: I do own a Wii, but I'm not writing these posts out of any kind of affection for it. I'm just generally pissed off at the media's fucked up use of graphs to make headlines out of non-issues, and this is the first chance I've ever had to respond to such abuse of statistics.

[Purge]

I think all it proves is that the current gaming market is not the target demographic for Wii owners.

You rarely see reviews bash a game for overly complex controls, and you most certainly don't see a review highlighting that most actions in the game keep things simple enough that people can hit one button to accomplish everything.

This is where the disconnect is; it has nothing to do with the caliber of games. That, and by the very nature of the Wii's online component and hardware limitation will not stack up against a game reviewer who is likely seasoned enough to recognize jaggies or less-than-current-gen graphics.

[Autistic Angel]

When it comes to cross-console bragging rights, being able to claim "*My* system has a smaller percentage of bad games I don't play!" seems pretty flimsy.

My Wii collection includes Twilight Princess, Super Paper Mario, Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, No More Heroes, Resident Evil 4 and Zack & Wiki.  Should the fact that the system also has games like Godzilla Unleashed or Open Season somehow make these games less enjoyable?

By contrast, the only PS3 game I own is Ninja Gaiden Sigma.  This is not because Wii games outsell PS3 games by a 7:1 ratio or because I find the Wii 700% more appealing than the PS3, but because Wii games tend to provide a longer game at a lower price, and I have a blast playing them.  I'm really looking forward to getting games like Ratchet & Clank: Future and Uncharted...I'm just waiting for a nice $40 sale price.  And again, the existence of lousy games like Lair or Genji won't affect my view of those superior games one bit.

Does anyone really pick out their gaming systems based on how many games they *don't* want to play?

-Autistic Angel

[Purge]

I'd never have owned an XBOX if I did.

[Farscry]

Does anyone really pick out their gaming systems based on how many games they *don't* want to play?

I'd hope not, or else no one would buy any consoles. They all have crap games.

As for the OP, while the article demonstrates a marginally interesting view of things, it's pretty much a red herring.

[Bullwinkle]

I think what that chart shows more than anything is that less games = better games.

You're almost right.  If you'd said fewer games = better games, you'd be on the money.

I basically agree with Destructor.  The more popular the system, the more shovelware that comes out for it.  However, as others have pointed out, Wii games don't score well on sites that are geared for the hardcore gamer.  It's a no-win, review-wise.

[metallicorphan]

my Wii gets turned on....(should i even go on?)..gets switched on,once or twice a month,VC was all i was playing at first interuppted by the odd Wii game(zelda,mario...resi 4...but the style of play got so old so very quickly,and i am no longer intersted in most games now..may look upon mario kart,but nothing else appeals to me thats on the horizon for the Wii

PS3,is getting stronger..i have been using the PS3 for internet because my PC broke...and its a real pain in the ass to use...but the games are definetly getting more interesting,i still buy 360 games over ps3 when it comes to multiformat...but i cant deny(me being an avid 360 fan)that i may be spending more time on the PS3 in future...but the Wii looks dead in teh water to me right now

[Caine]

we should ask again the question of multi system owners and % playtime.  for my part, my psp has moved past the ds for current playtime, with the pc making a resurgence against the 360.  the ps3 and the wii are almost nil for usage, after the dec/jan games reached their end.

game buying is mostly pc/360, with little of anything portable and nothing ps3/wii since last year.

[wonderpug]

we should ask again the question of multi system owners and % playtime.

I don't know if I could be more evenly split between my gaming platforms than I am right now.

PC: Seeing more use than it has for a long while with Team Fortress 2 and Sins of a Solar Empire
360: Rock Band, Rock Band, Rock Band
Wii: Dusted it off for No More Heroes
DS: Advance Wars almost daily on my commute
PS3: Uncharted is highest on my list of games to play next

[jersoc]

I think the ps3 did so well because there's only 10 games.




i kid, i kid. but really there's nothing on that system i'd want so far. i don't play my wii much, not because of the lack of games. But because I'm so damn addicted to rock band. i wish i was in high school where all the free time in the world was available. I think the fact that the wii is still not readily available speaks for itself. though i'm stumped on how that trend is continuing. you'd think eventually everyone would have a wii or something.

[Laner]

we should ask again the question of multi system owners and % playtime.

Right now the 360 gets the lion's share of my playtime, with the remainder split equally between my PC and DS.  My Wii & PS3 are literally gathering dust - after moving in December, they're still boxed up in the closet.

[hornysax]

I think those stats feel about right, but it seems the rationale behind the stats is open to interpretation.

I think Nintendo's strategy is to appeal to a wide demographic, which will inevitably earn the bad will of some reviewers.  Nintendo are producing apples and oranges, while PS and XBox are producing only Mangos (yes, mangos, the hardcore fruit eater's fruit).

My fiancee does PR for XBox360.  I have a giant stack of 360 games, but my Wii gets more play time.

[Purge]

My fiancee does PR for XBox360.  I have a giant stack of 360 games, but my Wii gets more play time.

Of course your Wii gets more play-time, you're not married yet.

Expect THAT to drop off; then it's all box-play.

[metallicorphan]

360-70%(on the 360 every day,without fail,also use this as my DVD player)

PS3-15%(for games its mainly PS2,but i also use this for surfing internet since PC broke down..its a pain)

PSP-10%(play ps1 games on it at dinner in work that i have downloaded from PSN on the PS3)

Wii-5%(played mario galaxy last november..not done anything with it since

DS-currently used for alarm clock..final fantasy 3 was last game played,many moons ago

PC-broke,but dont play games on it anyway

[Koz]

PC - 100%

 

(this is a PC games site right? ... right?!)

[JCC]

360-70%(on the 360 every day,without fail,also use this as my DVD player)

PS3-15%(for games its mainly PS2,but i also use this for surfing internet since PC broke down..its a pain)

With the 360s having such a high failure rate, and the PS3 being such a good upconverting DVD player, why in the world do you watch DVDs on the 360?!

[Purge]

JCC has a point.

[wonderpug]

360-70%(on the 360 every day,without fail,also use this as my DVD player)

PS3-15%(for games its mainly PS2,but i also use this for surfing internet since PC broke down..its a pain)

With the 360s having such a high failure rate, and the PS3 being such a good upconverting DVD player, why in the world do you watch DVDs on the 360?!

I'll throw out a guess that he either doesn't want to stop using the remote he bought for his 360 or that he wants to be able to keep using his non-bluetooth universal remote for his DVD watching.

[Caine]

maybe he's trying to kill his xbox?!