The Wii U has finally arrived. Now that the first reviews are trickling in, we want to explore what the first crop of games tell us about the Wii U’s potential as a hardcore and mainstream gaming platform.
(Culture, Industry, New Super Mario Bros. U, Next-Gen, Nintendo, Wii U, ZombiU)
I do Believe that review scores from big gaming sites will become less and less relevant. For me personally they are already irrelevant. I feel these gaming sites are in bed with dev studios and are 'bribed' and panhandled in order to receive a good metacritic score.
I remember a story posted here in which it was admitted that the big gaming websites give higher scores because of the 'perks' or something.
In any case, I go to gaming sites for videos and current news, but as far as opinions are concerned I steer clear from IGN, Gamespot, or GT. Though to be fair I've generally agreed most with GT reviews.
I just read the reviews to see the comments posts, as the users seems to understand about the game more than the reviewers. Almost all websites reviews are biased and the ppl that do it even seem like did not play the game at all. IGN gave mw3 a 9.0 although the game was by far one of the worst for the series, Gamespot gave Zelda SS a 7.5 cause they did not how to use the motion plus, Famitsuu gave skyrim a 40/40 for the ps3 version although it was unplayable. Best thing to do is check metacritic, some games are just too good (or too bad) to be realible to just one person opinion
I wouldn't go by famitsu as they were caught many times doing slimey things. They even admitted (or caught) giving games high scores to increase the sells of games in Japan
Or here's an idea. Instead of acting like a review is somehow wrong or biased if it disagrees with your opinion (because your opinion is clearly the right one), you just find a critic who you agree with and read their reviews.
It amazes me how many people have such a childish response to game reviews. Almost all critics call the shots as they see them. Guess what? They're not biased they just have different taste in games to you.
Matts, 40/40 for a game that is unplayable as skyrim was for the ps3 is BIASED! How they found that score I dont know but for sure they did not play the game.
But I agree you with, review is a opinion, but if I rely on only one opinion I would not buy a masterpiece as Zelda (gamespot)vand instead a overall bad game as mw3 (ign) (btw I bought both)
Funny, I managed to log in over 100 hours on the PS3 version of Skyrim.
Unplayable indeed!
Of course what you mean is that it is unplayable in your infinite wisdom's opinion, but naturally a random dude on the Internet is the one speaking absolute truths while the paid critics are the biased ones.
Where did talking about reviews come from? This article is about whether or not the Wii U will replicate the Wii's success. I agree with the article that it will not. My anecdotal evidence is that none of the nongamer people I've talked to have heard of the Wii U. Everyone knew about the Wii.
You calling it too early. No one herd of the Wii into it was out about 3 weeks. Only the hardcore picked it up and then word ran quickly. I lived in SF in 2006 and started talking about the Wii day 1. It was a good while before anyone knew what I was talking about, even in December I was getting sideways looks when I told people about it. Then 1 day all of a sudden. BAM the media all blew up with story's about this new Nintendo system, that is sold out everywhere. It hit every news channel and they were looping moms using the Wii mote on TV like 300 times per day.
130°
290°
70°
30°
Ad 
120°
10°
10°
40°
30°
30°
Believe that review scores from big gaming sites will become less and less relevant. For me personally they are already irrelevant. I feel these gaming sites are in bed with dev studios and are 'bribed' and panhandled in order to receive a good metacritic score.
I remember a story posted here in which it was admitted that the big gaming websites give higher scores because of the 'perks' or something.
In any case, I go to gaming sites for videos and current news, but as far as opinions are concerned I steer clear from IGN, Gamespot, or GT. Though to be fair I've generally agreed most with GT reviews.
IGN gave mw3 a 9.0 although the game was by far one of the worst for the series, Gamespot gave Zelda SS a 7.5 cause they did not how to use the motion plus, Famitsuu gave skyrim a 40/40 for the ps3 version although it was unplayable.
Best thing to do is check metacritic, some games are just too good (or too bad) to be realible to just one person opinion
It amazes me how many people have such a childish response to game reviews. Almost all critics call the shots as they see them. Guess what? They're not biased they just have different taste in games to you.
Wow. Mind blowing stuff.
But I agree you with, review is a opinion, but if I rely on only one opinion I would not buy a masterpiece as Zelda (gamespot)vand instead a overall bad game as mw3 (ign) (btw I bought both)
Unplayable indeed!
Of course what you mean is that it is unplayable in your infinite wisdom's opinion, but naturally a random dude on the Internet is the one speaking absolute truths while the paid critics are the biased ones.
Very good. Angry gamer logic at its finest.