When you consider a game, how do you judge it? Maybe you start by considering the genre and whether that fits your tastes? Maybe you consider the value behind the title and its offerings? Perhaps you account for visual flair?
But have you ever asked "Is it good considering the platform?"
Something that I found all too common in the way Wii games were judged in reviews and otherwise was with the phrase "Good for a Wii game". I have to tell you, that phrase made me cringe. Every time.
"Good for a Wii game" implicates some not so flattering things about the Wii. It says that the quality of Wii games, on average, were not all that great. I think we can all agree that implication isn't entirely true, nor entirely false. The Wii had some great titles, but they didn't flow as quickly as on its HD counterparts, thanks both to stronger online communities (and thus more indie titles) and far superior third party support.
I'm not offended by that implication, though. I had fun with many titles on the Wii, but I recognize that the Wii had a quantity issue (quality over quantity, sure, but there's a point when too little quantity is not acceptable) on great titles.
Where the phrase bothers me the most is the implication that this excused games for being sub-par or lackluster. Many titles got away with glaring issues that would never go unpunished in the way they were reviewed or viewed on the PC, PS3, or Xbox 360. It was almost a get out of jail free card to be a half decent game on the Wii. It was acceptance of a lower standard.
If I say nothing else positive about the Wii U, I have to say this; I'm glad to see the phrase "Good for a Wii game" die with it's release. There are a lot of AAA third party titles releasing on the Wii U. Any game will now have to be compared to those titles. No one will say "Good for a Wii U game" because the bar is much higher, with big name titles like Assassin's Creed 3 and Batman Arkham City seeing their own Wii U iterations.
For all the good Wii did, it also brought some quality issues along for the ride. Perhaps now we can move forward and the expanded gaming community can now be more thoroughly introduced to a higher standard. A standard that gravely needs to improve.
[DISCLAIMER: Any political comments will be reported as "Off Topic". I know what the picture is made from, as I shopped it myself. Regardless, politics have NOTHING to do with this blog, so don't do it, please. Furthermore, the picture implies no message, positive or negative about anything political. Thank you]
Sons of Valhalla is an exceptional 2D side-scroller action game that challenges players' strategic approach and skills management.
The armadillo returns.
I personally do remember Infogrames in the years prior to merger. They really did have a portfolio that stuck out and I enjoyed. I wonder what value they see in reviving it now though?
Sony is apparently experimenting with an AI tool that will play the game for you when you are grinding away. A PlayStation patent for “auto-play” mode would simulate your gameplay style in certain environments and apply them to skip that section completely. This technology would likely be built directly into the cloud-based PlayStation Network and be a new feature that subscribers would have access to.
Hah! Either will never happen or publishers will charge you to use this AI. This concept would only exacerbate the problem we already have with GaaS.
doesnt that concept already exist tho?
buy dlc to get a ahead in games? money, weapon and exp dlc come to mind but yeh. one more thing for them.to potentially charge for.
Usually, for GaaS/Seasonal games, you'll have to perform actions to earn specific in-game currency to buy things for events. Then they sell the currency with real cash or a third-currency to then buy the in-game currency items (it's honestly truly bloated to hide that they're cheating you out of money). With this, they'll just give you items if you do something 50 times or the like and then charge you to have the game play it for you. It's better, right? No currency shenanigans, just play the game and we reward you! But, the truth is they'll inflate the amount of times you have to play through content just to get the same thing.
Why?
Why not just remove the Grindy part?
I hope it's not an excuse to make them worse, but optional if you pay
This IGN blogger mode will allow 'reviewers' to play games like rest of us.
I will never forget watching GamingBolts spoiler video for Horizon FW and realizing they never played it. Made me wonder if they play games at all.
Reminds me of those 24 hours races in gran Turismo 4 having your PlayStation play for you.
But realistically if you have to use any of these for Grundy games there's a bigger underlying problem of the game not respecting your time in the first place.
Grind for game length is a real problem in my view
I think the term good for a Wii U was really meant for the Wii controls or the general graphics for obvious reason but I agree saying a game as a whole is good for a Wii game is a bit of an insult really as I have had some fun on the Wii and there are some solid games there that made me have the same amount of fun as if I was playing on my PS3 games.
Thing is, in the case of ME3, some reviews are saying the Wii U version isn't par with those already released.
If this kind of thing keeps up when newer consoles show up the term, "Good for a Wii U game" might be something to wish for.
Wii U needs to stay strong with japanese games like RPG´s and adventure games if it wants gamers attention.
I think the term will be coming back as soon as the real next gen consoles arrive.
All devices have that stigma in one way or another:
This multi-platform game is good for a PS3 game.
The graphics for this exclusive is good for a 360 game.
The title sold well for a PC game.
It's not that any of them are true to the degree that any of those things can be said with any certainty, but when they are repeated by people who don't clarify what they mean when it does matter is what makes such stereotypes stick.