Now what's up with the Wii's low review scores?!

Since the release of Nintendo's next generation console the Wii, it has become just like the Gamecube; with gamers dubbing it a 'family console'. This is due to the lack of hardcore games released on Nintendo's casual console, and too many third party titles making their debut on the platform. This has resulted in the Wii's casual audience becoming families, which will encourage even more third party titles to be released on Wii.

From looking at the charts, the Wii is scoring embarrassingly low reviews, especially compared to the other next-gen consoles. The PS3 and Xbox 360 are vastly speeding ahead, with the 360's average review score racing ahead of the Wii by around 6%, and the PS3 managing to outnumber the Wii's score by nearly 10%!

Call me dramatic, but it seems that the Wii has really embarrassed itself here. If Nintendo doesn't start stepping up their game with Wii titles soon, the Wii's score is going to continue to fall. Third parties are taking over the platform and if this continues Nintendo is going to start losing their fanbase of true gamers. Not an impressive piece of news for the Wii now is it?

Written by: Natalie Wilson

This post was last modified: 02-28-2008 08:00 PM by Kindrik.

It's not all Nintendo's fault, it's third part developers trying to copy their casual approach and producing nothing but shovelware. Some produce great games but they go unoticed by the majority of Wii's audience.

I need a PS3

lol.. what a load.  The statistics given are skewed by a bitter industry.  Of course the wii is going to average lower scores than the 360 and PS3.  The people reviewing games are the same people who are tech junkies.  The only thing the wii has going for it (from a technical pov) is fun/inventive gameplay.  The games don't best take advantage of the reviewers 1080p plasma or LCD flat panel, nor does it boom out 5.1 surround with games that immerse one in theater like experiences.  Plus a large portion of reviewers are turned off by perceived childish themes. There is a huge group of gamers and reviewers who wouldn't play a game (for extended times) unless it's rated T or M.

Nintendo has no reason to worry at this point in time.  They are the only current console I can't walk into your average store and buy.

This post was last modified: 02-12-2008 04:17 PM by Harmonica.

I can't believe it doesn't get better scores. Oh well, at least I like it.

Well, if you take off YOUR tin foil hat, then maybe you can see it more clearly too. Why do reviewers give bad reviews? Simple, because they review them for their game quality. Whether you agree or not, it may be "fun", for a while, but the replay value simply kills most of the games on the Wii today. There's very little replay value in anything but first party games on the Wii. As everyone does have their own opinion, but to call "bull" is hideous, when the large majority of the interwebs disagrees with you.

I dunno sc7...Harmonica makes a valid point. How many reviews of Wii games have you seen where they don't make any comparison to the 360 or the PS3 graphics? ANd a lot of people do still think that the Wii's games are for children which only furthers his point. You shouldn't shoot down his opinion simply because it isn't yours.

Plus the Wii hasn't had time for its greatest games to come out yet. Did the 360 have anything worth buying the first year it was around? No.

It is not a valid point. It is a conspiracy theory, and a bad one at that. There is a very, very long list of Wii games and a very, very short list of good Wii games.

The bash against graphics in Wii games is legit: many look like they belong on the Dreamcast, and that just takes away from the overall experience of many of today's videogames. Visual presentation is an important component to a good game. And after seeing a game like Super Mario Galaxy, I can confidently say that 99% of Wii games can do a LOT better in terms of visuals. Second, the reason a lot of people still think that the Wii's games are for children...is because 95% of them are for children! These end up being get-rich quick games in which developers make minimal effort in making a quality game (because the kiddies don't really care), hence the poor review scores.

And the Wii has had more than enough time to build up a decent library. The 360 had plenty of games worth buying in its first year. Even more discouraging is that there is very few games that hold much promise for the future either.

This post was last modified: 02-12-2008 06:24 PM by GlueGun18.

I agree with Gluegun. Saying the graphics don't matter is NOT a valid argument.

First I'll start with the Wii games are for children. While I agree that the "Wii is a children's machine" is a very common misconception, there are valid points coming from those whom feel the Wii is geared toward children. Sure, there ARE some great mature games for the Wii (Zelda, Metroid, Res. Evil), and games don't HAVE to be violent with mature themes to be fun for older audiences, but there ARE games that ARE geared toward a younger crowd. Some games simulate very basic ideas of society (i.e that Codemasters game where you're a cop), or they just take a very young theme (Zak and Wiki may be a great game, but it's a little to childish to appeal to many).

As for graphics. The Wii is partly capable of producing at least decent graphics. I've seen some pleasant graphics come out of the Wii, and that's more than satisfying, as graphics aren't everything. However, there is no execuse for the many downright lousy games that are released, some looking like late generation N64 games. That's hideous, and should not be accepted. To me, if the visuals are jaggy on my 1080p HDTV (running at 480p), that DOES detract from the game, because, IMHO, if a PS1 or GCN game DOESN'T have jaggies, that game looks better than the Wii game, regardless of texture resolution.

I know we do have a lot of people here who love the Wii, and that's quite understandable to defend your system of choice. The controls, personally, irritated me, and got old, that's why I sold mine. Some people like them, and that's cool too. I agree graphics aren't everything, but nice visuals are a significant aspect of making a game "that great game", that deserves a truly high rating. I can't see a game justified in receiving a high score if it looks like garbage on a screen.

As I've mentioned before, the controls also garner a negative reaction, because to many, they make the game simply not fun. Whether you prefer them or a controller, if it's not fun, it's not fun. Some games had great motion controls, but I think everyone knows 3rd parties have been milking it, and a lot of tacked on, terrible waggle controls are getting out there. Nintendo really should bring back the Seal of Quality

The average review score of the games that I have purchased wouldn't be anywhere near that low though, you don't have to purchase the bad games. Averages like this are fairly meaningless.

This post was last modified: 02-12-2008 07:52 PM by WCEFan.

The reviews are lower, but yet, magically, somehow the Wii is still outselling the PS3 and X-box. Interesting. THat should show you about how much power critics have in the game industry.

Besides, as I've said before, critics are useless. You won't know if you'll like a game until you play it. It's the plain truth.

The Wii also has a significantly lower software to hardware ratio compared to the others. What does that tell you?

I don't always agree with certain reviews, but generally speaking, when you are talking about an average calculated based on many different sources, the consensus gives you a fairly good idea on what to expect.

Graphics are important no matter what way you look at it. I used to be a "graphics don't matter" person until the Wii hit the shelves. Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed a couple of Wii games. But I find it much easier to immerse myself in the game if it is prettier to my eyes.

Then again, the Wii hasn't really had to worry about that due to the fact that it has really lacked story-heavy games that are of interest to me.

This is why I started getting annoyed by rumours of KH3 being on Wii. They shouldn't water a game down like that for Wii. It could really be helped by the PS3's horse-power.

Now as for reviews, lets sit back an look. Maybe its because the Wii games really aren't as good as Nintendo fans think... yeah, I think that's possibly it.

Well there are some games that are unfairly rated on the Wii (and all the other systems). Some of the averages are a lot lower than the actual game is worth. Think about all the games the industry says is bad only for the average gamer to actual have a high opinion of. Just because the industry gives the game a bad score doesn't mean the game is actually that bad.

Visuals may be a major component, but if the game plays like crap then what's the point? Example? Lair? What a downright beautiful game. But lousy controls and we have a lousy game. Gameplay is a lot better of an advantage over graphics. And just because some Wii games require more skill to control than PS3/360 games that have more traditional controls, doesn't mean everyone should just give up and sell their Wiis.
And the graphics aren't always that important. Look at all the great games out there: Chrono Trigger, Super Metroid, Super Mario 64, Super Mario Bros. Are those to be considered crappy games because they aren't in HD? Should they rerelease ever major game just to update the graphics?

Critics don't get everything right. They're wrong a lot of the time. Many great films receive bad reviews from 'professional' critics but receive raves from the average gamer. Let's see some review averages from regular people versus this statistic.

A major problem is the one stated above: 3rd Parties. They constantly turn out crap after crap and ignorant people blame Nintendo when it isn't even their fault. What are they supposed to do? Say 'no you can't put that game on our system'? Bad reviews come from poorly made games. Developers are least likely to make a crappy game on the PS3 or 360 because it costs a lot more to make them and there's a huge monetary risk when you create a game for millions of dollars and it flops. On the Wii, games are made a vastly lower costs which isn't as much of a risk to big companies as is to lose all the money on a 'high-end' game.

This post was last modified: 02-12-2008 10:48 PM by Rooster.

Selling a ton of consoles to grandmothers, teenage girls, and soccer moms who buy 1 game a year != a good system.

NinjaRooster, you can't really bring up those games. During their time they were the peak of their graphics. So they are still classics because for their time they were incredible. They shouldn't need to be remade.

Oh goodness, if people (millions mind you) are buying a product it must be doing something right. Regardless of the "I want to see my character sweat in HD and the Wii doesn't provide enough detail to where I can see the acne on Solid Snake.", it still is appealing to certain people's taste. Hell, more people's taste than both the 360 and PS3. If you 'graphix' gamers out there aren't satisfied then that's fine, it's lacking where you want it to flourish I understand, but please don't act like the Wii has nothing to offer. I STILL don't see a reason to buy the PS3 right now, and I haven't played my 360 in weeks, besides the 30mins I spent playing DMC4. I'm actually starting to dislike this whole "who needs a change in gameplay when I can show you the stitchings in your character's clothes?" approach. It's kind of the opposite of what most people feel but it makes me nauseous when I'm playing the same game I played years ago with better graphics. Hand me something different, and keep away the same old junk from last gen please.

It's pretty justifiable to bring up those games, although they're classics people still play them in light of all of the pretty games we have today. Why? Because they play well.

This post was last modified: 02-13-2008 05:13 AM by Ricky.

I don't always agree with critics. I'm an avid movie fan and I rarely agree with movie critics. I think one thing people are forgetting is just how many games the Wii has. There are a ton of Wii games out there so it's bound to bring down the average review. For say a Metroid, Zelda, or Mario game you have a Carnival, Party Games, Barbie: Island Princess, Cruisin, Cruisin, Cruisin (that game is so bad I had to list it 3 times). The point is that it's not saying that the Wii doesn't have any good games, it's saying that the Wii has more crap than the other systems. Sure there are games on the 360 and PS3 that suck as well but there are less of them. I would say one reason is that if someone bought the 360 or PS3 then they do care about graphics so publishers know not to port some game with yesteryear graphics and try to sell it on those two systems. They at least have to try a little more than that. It's a shame for Wii owners that we have more shovelware but as long as there's a Mario, Metroid, or Zelda game out there then we'll have something decent to play.

This is all BS anyways, if you look at gamerankings or metacritic, the 360 averages the highest scores among it's top tier games. The Wii is a close second. The PS3 is a noticeable third with the majority of its top games appearing on the 360 as well.

Since the 360 had a year head start, and thus a year more for developement, this is all to be expected. Nintendo is lucky to be where they are with how late they were getting developer kits to third parties, as well as how long they kept what the fuss was a secret. Anyone who digs up meaningless stats and posts them as signs of impending doom is just trolling. So kiddies, don't get your undies in a bunch.

...no they weren't. Have you seen Super Mario 64? It had worse graphics than both Banjo-Kazooie games. Super Mario Bros didn't have the best graphics on the NES either.