So, I just got my February issue of Game Informer. The top 50 games of 2010 were in it. That's cool, right? Wrong.
You know what I noticed? Extreme prejudice. How?
There were four Wii exclusives I counted in there. Kirby's Epic Yarn, Donkey Kong Country Returns, Super Mario Galaxy 2, and the WiiWare release of Cave Story.
Cave Story got an 8.75 review score.
Kirby's Epic Yarn and Donkey Kong Country Returns got 9.5's
Super Mario Galaxy got a 9.25.
Yet none of the four, despite being highly praised by the reviewers were even in the nominations for Game of the Year.
Game of the Year went to Red Dead Redemption. Granted, it scored 9.75, higher than any of the others. But to not even consider them? Not two games with 9.5?

They claimed to love these games. But they don't show it. It's like Wii review scores only count against other Wii games. It's revolting to Nintendo fans to see their beloved franchises get lauded as amazing games and then forgotten when GotY comes around.

IGN was even worse. They gave SMG2 a perfect 10. Still didn't consider it, still gave GotY to Red Dead. It got a 9.7.

Why? Why can't reviewers consider Wii games? Why must they hold a double standard?

Thoughts?

Obvious: companies pay the big-shot review websites/magazines to win/be mentioned as game of the year. Easy advertising.

Either that, or all of the companies must have a big grudge against Nintendo.

the_casualty : I'm really hoping it's the latter, honestly . Although the way the editors complained on podcast about Red Dead getting it at the VGA's and then it was the staff pick at the magazine is totally not fishy at all...
[/sarcasm]

It's obvious. The Wii and it's exclusives are just not very good. The MAIN problem with wii games is that they are mostly for 13 year olds and that age range. The reviewers are adults and they find the more interesting games to be the ones on the other consoles.

I looked at my game informer and was very pleased myself, because I felt they got it right. But then again, I am also in the PS3 diehard group and dislike the Wii the most.

legacyme3 : But if that were the case I wouldn't have a problem. The problem is that they DO enjoy these games, DO give them good scores, and DO call them amazing and recommend you buy them. It's not that they don't like them, it's that they ignore them when the time comes for GotY. They treat the Wii like a whole different class for that one vote a year, and then call it equal the rest of the time.

bigNATE :

Well, here's my take.

For a WII game it is great. So they rate it high because really, a 10 rated Wii game does not equal a 10 rated PS3 game because of the abilities and the uses of those systems.

A wii game that scored a 9 is like an 8 on the PS3.

I personally would put Kirby's Epic Yarn at number 5 at best. Even though it was a good game.

The Wii games seem to be "lower tier" no offense, to reviewers. If Kirby got a 9.5 and then a triple A title got a 9.5, the triple A title is going to be "above" Kirby. The Wii can't quite produce high enough technical games that are on par with Xbox/PS3. In other words, their judged on a different scale.

That's honestly the most shallow argument that could be used.

The Wii's lack in power is only that it can't produce HD graphics. That's it. It has no limitation on being able to play great games, only on making them look realistic. But that can be circumvented with creative art styles like in Kirby's Epic Yarn. Saying that they should be counted as lower ratings merely because the graphics aren't HD is like saying a car is terrible because it doesn't look as good as another. Say this car actually drives better than the other, and all test-drivers ranked it higher than the other. That's like IGN's case with SMG2 and RDR. Does the fact that the first car doesn't look as pretty mean it should be ranked lower? People like to drive good-looking cars. People like to play games with great graphics. But if the uglier car drives better and the non-HD game is more fun to play, then why should they be taken down in ratings because their visual limitations? The reviewer's job is to tell you if a game is fun to play; if the graphics don't hinder the experience, or maybe on the flipside if the graphics don't make the game that much more fun, then they really should count very little towards the overall score. Sure, some people may not like the SD engines and are strictly HD, but that's not what reviewers are for; they're there to say if the games were fun. And they do. Ranking them lower because they still look great, just not as great as other games out there (don't deny that the Galaxy games are beautiful), is shallow and prejudiced. Are we really that shallow as people? Cause if we are, I'm sticking to my Nintendo games and my friends who enjoy them thank you very much.

you know i remember that issue and i was pissed too.
its just the standard nintendo has let itself get into
i myself being a nintendo fanboy, know that the wii isn't a graphics badass but nintendo realized a long time ago that if they sacrificed graphics for gameplay it'd be a winner
i mean aside from the main series of nintendo games you see the difference in quality
enough ranting moral of the story we as nintendo fans have accepted what games we already expect to be good and we know which ones will fail

I think that Nintendo makes a lot of really awesome games, it's just that the game reviewers probably don't really like Nintendo all that much. With Nintendo, it seems to be that you're either a fan or not, and to be honest, I'm not a fan. If I'd decided those results, they probably would've come out the same. I'm not saying this is right, though, the process is definitely flawed. Instead, a team of reviewers that all have different tastes should be deciding. That way, while the results may not be what everyone wants, they'll at least be fair.

Totally agree. Reviewers love the wii games and then when it comes time to say the best of the best they don't want to even point it out! Next they will probably just take out the best game of the year on wii because they have some grudge because of Nintendo's monopoly over the industry. At this rate I kind of don't blame them, they could release total junk (ie. Lumberjack Games) and people would still buy that crap.

PS I know that lumberjack games is not nintendo made.

Yeah, they say that they like it, but give it a not good review about it, not good at all.

It is kinda of prejudice to overlook Wii games just because they are for younger or casual gamers. Wii games are excellent despite what it lacks compared to the PS3 and Xbox360 in graphics and such. If you think about it parents of young children support Nintendo maybe there wasn't enough votes for the Wii games to receive the award.

Ya it sounds like a double standard. Graphics don't make or break a game. Thats why im on the retro game room playing old games is because the games are just better. The new games lack so much when it comes to replay value. Ya they look amazing i agree with you but thats not what makes a game great. One of my favorite games of all time Zelda Ocarina of time can't compare to Uncharted on the PS3 when it comes to graphics, but the gameplay and story, and great characters makes this game in my opinion better. They need to rate games on gameplay not looks.

Gameinformer doesn't give Nintendo much credit... Nintendo Power is better at choosing Wii games.

It's probably because Xbox 360 and PS3 games have better graphics. I too think that Wii games should be considered for GotY but it's just that the reviewers probably think that the Wii is just a kid's console. I agree with iceycold on this one, they should hire reviewers with different tastes for games. Then Wii games might be considered. But more people play Xbox/Playstation games more and for that matter Wii games seem like a different league than the Xbox/Playstation games.

I think the WII just doesn't have games that are as deep or as "good" as its competitors. I don't think it is the graphics as much as the games themselves. I played all three of the games you mentioned for the Wii and they weren't as good as games for the PS2... The mentioned Wii games just do not have the level of story needed for a truly great game.

Though I do think the Wii is just getting abuse from most people, I think you have the wrong idea.

When reviewers from those press companies and such make reviews, they don't all review the game and give it a score, they hand it to one person to give their opinion and write a review. The person can be incredibly fair or biased, but that's just his or her opinion. When GotY comes around, I'm sure they don't just take the review score into account, but have the entire staff of reviewers and people vote and give the rankings. So they probably don't even consider the review scores that much at all.

Don't get me wrong, some of those Wii games should've been even nominated. I'm playing SMG2 right now and it's a wonderful game. But I'm just letting you know how they'd probably work, and why the review scores don't seem to match up with their own rankings. Not that it's perfect, but that's just how it is for them I guess.

It's got nothing to do with the fact that Wii games "seem lesser" than the games nominated. Lots of people are saying that and I'm utterly annoyed by the fact that they would say stuff like that even though Nintendo is practically the reason people play video games today.

legacyme3 : The MAIN problem with wii games is that they are mostly for 13 year olds and that age range...you should play no more heroes,no more heroes 2 and mad world

Those games are far from the normal game made for the Wii and you know it.