Super Mario Galaxy: Let the reviews begin.

[Bond]

I like how IGN calls the graphics "Outstanding on the Wii," and then gives it a 9.5.

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by Bond

I like how IGN calls the graphics "Outstanding on the Wii," and then gives it a 9.5.

Well, I mean, there's always room for improvement...thats the way I look at it anyways...

[thatmariolover]

Originally Posted by Bond

I like how IGN calls the graphics "Outstanding on the Wii," and then gives it a 9.5.

I guess I don't know where you're going with that. They are outstanding for the Wii. The 9.5 is a clear statement that there's always room for improvement, as Jason says. But if you're inferring they should give it a low score on graphics because it doesn't compete with Xbox 360 or PS3, I disagree. I think it only makes sense to rate the game for what was possible given the circumstances.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by thatmariolover

I guess I don't know where you're going with that. They are outstanding for the Wii. The 9.5 is a clear statement that there's always room for improvement, as Jason says. But if you're inferring they should give it a low score on graphics because it doesn't compete with Xbox 360 or PS3, I disagree. I think it only makes sense to rate the game for what was possible given the circumstances.

I suppose I just have an issue with their ratings of Wii graphics in general. Let me explain...

So IGN gives the game a 9.5 rating - and then justifies it with, "Outstanding... on the Wii." So, obviously it would not be outstanding on the PS3 or Xbox 360, so naturally it would get a lower score, but how much lower? A 7.0? So is a 7.0 on the PS3/Xbox 360 equivalent to a 9.5 on the Wii? I have no idea. And what if a third party releases a game on all three consoles. Will it receive a 7.0 on the PS3/Xbox 360 and a 9.5 on the Wii? Would that affect the game's overall score?

I just sense fairness issues with that rating system.

[Angrist]

Originally Posted by Bond

And what if a third party releases a game on all three consoles. Will it receive a 7.0 on the PS3/Xbox 360 and a 9.5 on the Wii?

Why not? A developer can really push the Wii graphics to make it look good, so Wii-owners will be amazed by it and love it. The same graphics on the PS3/360 won't impress their owners, because they're used to better stuff. So yes, a 9.5 for the Wii and a 7 for the other versions sounds very normal to me.

What rating would you suggest? The bést looking game so far gets a 10, the rest somewhere between 0 and 10? In that case, PSP, DS and retro games all get incredibly low scores for graphics. If they account for 1/4 of the final grade, they can bring down a otherwise perfect game from a 10 to a 7.5.

Or maybe we should base it on reality 'graphics'? A theoretical future game has graphics so good that it's indistinguishable from real life. That game's graphics get a 10. Anything that looks worse than that, gets a lower score. Graphics of 360 and PS3 games can't get higher than a 6, only for the fact that they're not 3D virtual reality.

Get real. Scores should be based on what's póssible in the given situation.

[thatmariolover]

Originally Posted by Bond

I suppose I just have an issue with their ratings of Wii graphics in general. Let me explain...

So IGN gives the game a 9.5 rating - and then justifies it with, "Outstanding... on the Wii." So, obviously it would not be outstanding on the PS3 or Xbox 360, so naturally it would get a lower score, but how much lower? A 7.0? So is a 7.0 on the PS3/Xbox 360 equivalent to a 9.5 on the Wii? I have no idea. And what if a third party releases a game on all three consoles. Will it receive a 7.0 on the PS3/Xbox 360 and a 9.5 on the Wii? Would that affect the game's overall score?

I just sense fairness issues with that rating system.

Splitting up the rating for 'graphics' into 'art' and 'visual effects' would balance that gap out a little bit. But I still think you need to judge it fairly based upon what was possible on the console. You and I both know that all ports are not created equal. If effort was put forth and it shows, then it should get a good rating.

But going along the same line, what about controls? Should an Xbox or PS3 game be rated a lower score if the controls aren't as good (Call of Duty 4)? I dont' really think so. Just as it shouldn't be rated lower than a PC version of a game for lack of mouse and keyboard.

/shrug

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by Bond

I suppose I just have an issue with their ratings of Wii graphics in general. Let me explain...

So IGN gives the game a 9.5 rating - and then justifies it with, "Outstanding... on the Wii." So, obviously it would not be outstanding on the PS3 or Xbox 360, so naturally it would get a lower score, but how much lower? A 7.0? So is a 7.0 on the PS3/Xbox 360 equivalent to a 9.5 on the Wii? I have no idea. And what if a third party releases a game on all three consoles. Will it receive a 7.0 on the PS3/Xbox 360 and a 9.5 on the Wii? Would that affect the game's overall score?

I just sense fairness issues with that rating system.

I don't think it's unfair.
I mean for the most part games are judged based on their overall appeal on the console and then their grand thing.

And why does it matter what the game would rate on the Ps3/360 in comparison to the 360? I mean Mario looks good, and I think it would look good on any console.

But not why posted

http://penguin.conpuzzled.com/MarioLaunch%20015.jpg
This is my swag.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RcbN4idAvh8
Mario breaking a move.