Edge analyzes Wii, PS3 review scores
by Richard Mitchell 
{ Apr 8th 2009 at 7:45PM } 
According to Edge and EEDAR's numbers, 17 percent of PS3 games have scored 85 or higher, while 30 percent are rated below 65. This compares favorably with the Xbox 360, which saw 13 percent of its titles above 85. The Wii sees only 4 percent of its titles rated 85 or higher, while a full 54 percent fell at or below 65.
Those who follow the industry can probably guess why Wii seems to attract a disproportionately large number of poorly reviewed games. Edge cites the low entry barrier for Wii developers, allowing more bad games to hit the market hoping to ride the Wii cash wave -- or, if you prefer not to mince words: shovelware. The report also points to developer difficulty in grasping the intricacies of Wii's control interface. Furthermore, the article posits that review scores don't really matter to the system's primarily casual audience.
Of course, the critical caveat concerning the analysis is that review scores are subjective. After all, one gamer's must-have is another's don't-bother. Just look at Fatal Frame IV.
Source - Games At-a-Glance: PS3 Quality
Source - Games At-a-Glance: Wii Quality
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
MaliceMajorE15 @ Apr 8th 2009 7:50PM
i like the term shovelware. are they talking about edge the uk magazine?
DeathroW @ Apr 8th 2009 7:51PM
So if review scores are to be taken seriously, the console with the best exclusives - in order is:
1) PS3
2) 360
3) Wii
Makes sense i suppose.
DeathroW @ Apr 8th 2009 7:53PM
I meant to say "the console with the highest rated exclusives".
Markez @ Apr 8th 2009 7:56PM
Um, no. Don't think you can look at these EEDAR graphs and infer that... Sigh.
Markez @ Apr 8th 2009 7:57PM
Er, nevermind, disregard. Sigh again.
BunnySlapper @ Apr 8th 2009 8:02PM
Hardly.
Keep in mind the number of titles being considered. There are over 100 more games on the 360 than on the PS3, which is going to skew the percentages.
If these numbers are to be believed, there are 216 total PS3 titles while there are 357 Xbox titles.
That leaves 173 Xbox games in the 65 - 85 range compared to PS3's 115. So while the PS3 might have a few percentage point gain in the 85+ category, keep in mind that 360 still has more titles in that category as well as the mid-range category.
DeathroW @ Apr 8th 2009 8:21PM
Alright then. I'll change it to personal experience then! Can't argue with that.
* Waits for down ratings *
David @ Apr 8th 2009 8:49PM
You can only say that the console with the highest percentage of titles over 85 is the PS3. Despite the lower percentage score, the 360 has more titles that have scored over 85.
Chris D.(PSN: Aggie_CEO | XBL:The Aggie CEO | Steam: Aggie_CEO @ Apr 8th 2009 8:59PM
FACT!!!
handlas @ Apr 8th 2009 9:06PM
@David
and the 360 has been out a year longer than the PS3....what's your point? For the number of games released, PS3 has the better critic scores. Enough games on each console that it really shouldn't even matter that the 360 has more games out.
Plus you look at 2009....one console appears to have a much much better exclusive lineup from what we know thus far and I think it is obvious which console that is.
CB @ Apr 8th 2009 9:42PM
Most of the higher rated games for the 360 came out after late '06 with only like 5 before. The "360 being out a year longer" is just like "PS3 has no games". Argument's old now.
Orex @ Apr 8th 2009 10:41PM
May i point PS interest to
http://ps3trophycard.com/
&
http://psnleaderboard.com/
(trophy WORLD rankings generated using PSN.)
(sorry for reply)
handlas @ Apr 9th 2009 1:59AM
...explain to me how the "ps3 has no games" argument is anyhting like "the 360 has an advantage by being released a year early" argument. Nothing in common. First argument is stupid made up sh*t by fanboys to piss off the other fanbase. The later a company making a smart move to get their product on the market fastest so they can get sales. For f*ck sakes they knew their console was defective and still put it out to get a year jump on the other consoles....
yes it matters. Not to the overall critic scores for games, but it matters for other reasons. But you brought it up so...
CB @ Apr 9th 2009 2:29AM
Did you read the last sentence? "Argument's old now." Both are tired, over-used arguments.
Seriously, don't get so butt hurt and go on rambling nonsense over nothing.
dasy @ Apr 9th 2009 7:28AM
@bunnyslapper. Actually, if you look up the metacritic scores for the ps3 and the 360 the PS3 has over 5 more exclusive games rated over 80 and an extra 4 over 85 (based on metacritic scores). Percentage wise the average 360 exclusive is 68/100 whereas the ps3 is 76/100. So looks like quantity doesn't equal more quality.
Graeme Q @ Apr 9th 2009 8:24AM
No,
Thats not how percentages work.
Say, the PS3 has 100 games and 20 of them were rated 85% or above. That would give you a value of 20% of the games are decent.
Then say, the xbox has 300 games of which 60 got given 85% or above. That would also give a percentage of 20% of its games are decent.
In pure numbers, the xbox would have 40 more games worth over 85%.
Bunny slapper has given us the raw data and you can see the details are as follows....
Xbox 360:
# Titles: 357
# above 85: 48
# 85 65: 173
# below 65: 136
PS3:
# Titles: 216
# above 85: 36
# 85 65: 115
# below 65: 65
Wii:
# Titles: 287
# above 85: 12
# 85 65: 120
# below 65: 155
(Credit to bunnyslapper there)
Graeme Q @ Apr 9th 2009 8:27AM
sod it, ignore me. I didn't read up properly :)
handlas @ Apr 9th 2009 11:29AM
humm CB....I read your comment and responded and then you respond back with more nonsense....seriously learn to not be a complete dumbass.
CB @ Apr 9th 2009 2:52PM
handlas, don't be stupid. You read my comment wrong and went on a little crazy rant cursing for no reason just because you couldn't comprehend what I wrote.
TregGert @ Apr 23rd 2009 7:54PM
@ Everybody:
The problem is actually pretty simple, and I am surprised no body checked.
These numbers don't work out... This is April 2009, the 360 doesn't have a library of 300-some odd games, and the PS3 doesn't have a library of 200-some odd games. Neither system has had a library that small for quite some time (talking 2007).
The numbers posted on the percent bars don't work, especially when you check Metacritic and there are less games rated about 85 for both systems than they list.
We can't really trust this at face value, there are some other kind of restrictions here that we don't know about... There is no way there are that many multi-SKU titles (seriously... 200/300+ multi-SKU games? No way) and there is no way these numbers match up for this to be done this year.
On a side note, in regards to good games on the PS3/360. The argument of 1 year earlier does actually apply, yeah, it was a business move, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter in this respect. The 360 had a whole year of titles to its library before the PS3 came out (spin it how you want, but that matters). I think the more important statistic is since all three systems hit the market, in which case the PS3 has: 35 and the 360 has: 36 (according to metacritic). Both systems also have about 9 titles a year above the 85 mark.
That tells me, quality game wise, the two systems are identical. I mean, the point being made here isn't that the PS3 is better than the 360 quality wise, the article even says the PS3/360 numbers are comparable. The point here is actually that the Wii's quality games are lagging behind the other two, and by a very large margin.
Markez @ Apr 8th 2009 7:53PM
Thanks, Rich, you just had to go there and sign off with the Fatal Frame IV bit. SHENANIGANS, I SAY!
Richard Mitchell @ Apr 8th 2009 10:54PM
What can I say, the Fatal Frame IV news hurt me today. It hurt me bad.
sony boy @ Apr 8th 2009 7:53PM
meh, all the games that aren't shovelware never sell well unless there a nintendo franchise. just look at madworld. i wish it would've sold better.
Mr Khan @ Apr 8th 2009 7:57PM
It'll do just fine. 100k is a solid start, and we still don't have conclusive data for the launch period yet. April NPD has yet to emerge
Markez @ Apr 8th 2009 7:58PM
WTF, I click on Khan's link since he has a stupid Mario avatar and it says no such user found...
Mister Bogus (Mr. ESC) @ Apr 8th 2009 8:01PM
I haven't bought Madworld or Overkill yet because Wii games here at a 100$ each.
I wanted to play LoZ:TP and Metroid but at 99$ each well I'm not dying to play them.Only No more heroes was released here at 40$,I never finished it because I got it a few weeks before Brawl.
I wish Wii titles were cheaper here, I wanted to buy De blob.
Mr Khan @ Apr 8th 2009 8:02PM
the Missingno. avatar. It used to have an account (with verifiable numbers for all the comments made under it's erroneous moniker), but now it merely leads nowhere.
BunnySlapper @ Apr 8th 2009 8:21PM
$99 for a Wii game: What? I have to assume that's not a U.S. dollar...
Moptimus Slime (Gobot in disguise) @ Apr 9th 2009 12:43AM
hes Australian, which I believe means he speaks German and uses the Euro
McWilly @ Apr 9th 2009 8:47AM
What? No he's not. He's canadian which can only mean he speaks arabic and uses yen.
Anti-Villian @ Apr 9th 2009 10:45PM
If he was Australian he would have picked up madworld for $70 at EB
Mr Khan @ Apr 8th 2009 8:01PM
Considering that stuff like Mario Kart Wii, Wii Fit, and Wii Sports all come in under that 85 and over mark, you really wonder if metacritic has their finger on the pulse of where gaming is going.
Clearly, change is needed.
Can't really find fault with the stats themselves, though. When you work for the most expensive platform development-wise, you guarantee your best work, especially in such relatively quantifiable categories as graphics, sound, score, etc. Equally, you have to do none of those things to develop for the cheapest of the lot, especially when it's the cheapest by far.
Gavin @ Apr 8th 2009 8:05PM
Yeah, the change needed is that Nintendo needs to turn their lack of quality control around and actually make that Nintendo seal mean something. Let anybody dump any hunk of shit on your system and you will eventually learn the lesson that Atari learned with the 2600. Also, the NES suffered from the same problems in it's latter days. Tons of shit and very few games worth actually pruchasing. That is why so many people rented NES games back then. Very few of them were worth actually buying, and the same goes for most Wii games.
manyquestions @ Apr 8th 2009 8:35PM
Yeah, and then once they do that everyone yells at them for stiffling developer creativity. Allegedly, Nintendo's had quality control measures in place since the NES, to avoid what they saw as the thing that killed Atari: a flood of low-quality titles. That makes sense, but the problem is you can't take it too far. You can regulatet hat a game functions properly, etc. but what is and isn't a good game is incredibly subjective, and any sort of attempt to regulate it would only end in disaster. I say, do the minimum necessary to avoid the consumer getting lost in a mess of broken games, but trust the market to sort most of it out. Truly bad games WILL fail, making it uneconomical for a company to continue making those games. Companies that continually fail to make a good game will go out of buisiness.
warioswoods2 @ Apr 8th 2009 9:33PM
Mr Khan is correct -- Wii Sports was a milestone in the history of gaming, and the fact that it falls well below the required 85 utterly invalidates the relevance of Metacritic. Mario Kart Wii is the best local multiplayer racing game in ages, and again falls below the mark.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: gaming blogs and "journalists" rarely review a piece of software on its own terms; instead, they cater to their core audience, which is mostly 15-25 year old guys who have a very narrow (and, to be honest, unbelievably immature) idea of what hardcore gaming is and should be. Gaming sites and magazines touted Madworld as bringing maturity to the Wii, and they spent ages defending that idiotic game Manhunt. That alone should make anyone with half a brain wary of taking the reviews from these same sites seriously.
Metacritic just compounds the problem.
Bissy Boy (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Apr 8th 2009 9:39PM
Yeah because if reviewers don't go along with what the masses are buying then they have no credibility. When you are averaging the scores from all reviewers then there isn't any excuse. It's all the scores in between the top and bottom that says no of them are particularly exceptional titles. They chose to use 85 as their metric but looking at the averages of those three you mentioned they are within 9 points so it's not as if they are far off but are still in that middle range.
Mario Kart Wii 82
Wii Fit 80
Wii Sports 76
Look at the PS3, 360 & Wii titles that are between 75 & 84 and you will see that even in that in between stage the PS3 & 360 still have much better games. Better games are better. It doesn't matter what the reason is but the fact remains that the PS3 & 360 have the best line up of software from top to bottom.
Vidikron @ Apr 8th 2009 9:43PM
First off, Metacritic compiles ratings. It's not like they gave these ratings themselves. Second, reviews are pure opinion anyway. I mean, you guys are calling Wii Sports a milestone, yet I personally think that only the Bowling is worth a damn, the rest are boring tech demos. MK Wii is fun, but it's not really any different than the the past few MKs. IMO, it's actually a step down compared to the past couple of games.
warioswoods2 @ Apr 8th 2009 10:53PM
@ Boy
"Yeah because if reviewers don't go along with what the masses are buying then they have no credibility."
Excellent reading skills. My complaint was not that gaming reviewers don't follow the masses, it was that they cater to a very specific demographic, ie those that go around calling themselves "hardcore" for sitting in front of a TV longer than others and equate a mature ESRB rating with maturity (when in fact the two are often in a near-perfect inverse relation). This makes sense for them from a business standpoint, since those are the people that overwhelmingly read gaming sites. Nonetheless, the only skill of the vast majority of gaming reviewers is their ability to understand the wishes of this outspoken demographic; beyond this, their reviews betray a complete lack of real critical skills and a fundamental inability to judge anything on its own terms. I don't expect you to agree, bu read criticism from different domains (film, literary, etc) and you'll find that the most abysmal writing and analysis is from the gaming sites every time. How wonderful that we can then turn that into a single number which one hopes will represent the objective quality of a title.
@Vid
"First off, Metacritic compiles ratings. It's not like they gave these ratings themselves. Second, reviews are pure opinion anyway."
How did I miss that they compile rating? Oh, I didn't. I said that they "compound the problem," which clearly refers to the fact that they both 'compile' ratings and add to their perceived legitimacy by assigning a supposedly objective meta-score.
Second, let's not go down this track too far, but to simply say that all criticism is opinion is nonsense and completely avoids the issue. Whether or not the reviewer enjoyed the game is opinion; judging its merit, ingenuity, and quality as a piece of digital entertainment is not mere personal opinion, and this kind of judging can be intelligent and insightful, on the one hand, or it can be short-sighted and severely limited. I think you know where I'd place the vast majority of gaming reviewers in that distinction.
Kenny Powers Fastball (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Apr 8th 2009 11:45PM
I was talking to Mr.Khan
Specifically this part:
Considering that stuff like Mario Kart Wii, Wii Fit, and Wii Sports all come in under that 85 and over mark, you really wonder if metacritic has their finger on the pulse of where gaming is going.
Clearly, change is needed.
Vidikron @ Apr 9th 2009 11:26AM
@warioswoods
"Wii Sports was a milestone in the history of gaming, and the fact that it falls well below the required 85 utterly invalidates the relevance of Metacritic. Mario Kart Wii is the best local multiplayer racing game in ages, and again falls below the mark. "
That's the part I was addressing. I don't see how Wii Sports' average invalidates Metacritic. I mean, you say the average is "supposedly" objective... how is it "supposedly"? It IS objective. The scores for all games on all platforms is calulated using ther same methods, that's the definition of objective. If you disagree with the average then you should be looking to actual reviewers. NOT Metacritic.
" judging its merit, ingenuity, and quality as a piece of digital entertainment is not mere personal opinion, and this kind of judging can be intelligent and insightful,"
This is not true. How do you measure ingenuity or merit? Something that one person views an ingenious may seem like a pointless gimmick to another person. To an extent you can judge quality, but even then there many grey area. For example, graphic quality. There's an artisitic side which contains a LOT of personal opinion and then there's the technical side. On the technical side of things how do you judge? Compared to its peers, the 360 and PS3, most Wii games are sub-par on the technical side. There really isn't much you can judge that doesn't contain opinion.
Going back to Wii Sports... Wii Sports is a perfect example. You call Wii Sports a "milestone". I, OTOH, had fun with Wii Sports for an hour or so. I suppose you could argue that it was a milestone for Nintendo and breaking through to the truly casual audience, but let's get one thing clear here: appeal to the masses does not equal quality. And reviews generally rate on quality.
I know the hardcore Wii fanboys hate the fast food analogy, but it works and it works here again. The Wii really is like the fast food of gaming. Most people eat fast food at least once in a while. It's quick, cheap, and easy. The masses love fast foods places for these reasons. But only the most delusional person actually thinks fast food joints offer, overall, the best food around. If you had to rate the menu items against food offered by non-fast food places in most cases the items will be sub-par in comparison. This is basically Wii Sports. It hooked the masses and even the hardcore guys can get some enjoyment out of it, but its ultimately shallow tech-demo level gaming. Almost anyone can enjoy it for what it is, but there's no real substance. And in most cases it was rated accordingly.
Davey @ Apr 9th 2009 3:48PM
Mr Khan and warioswoods2 seem to be suggesting that great sales automatically mean a game is great. A product's sales are totally irrelevant to a review. Are you saying a review should go something like this: "I think this game is very poor and has a number of issues, however it will sell very well, therefore I will give it 100%". I suppose you also think that Backstreet Boys' albums should get better reviews than Arcade Fire's albums because they sell more. A review isn't about sales, it's about quality.
I can't really understand why Wii fanboys would want to discredit Metacritic scores because then they'd have to discredit the brilliant Metacritic scores of Super Mario Galaxy (97%), The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (95%), Super Smash Bros. Brawl (93%), etc. And I doubt they'd want to do that.
Wii Sports got mediocre reviews because it's a mediocre game (though it actually has a score of 76%, which I would say it should be happy with). Its "sales" or impact are irrelevant to its quality or how it should be reviewed. Its "sales" and impact are down to the fact that it appeals to the lowest common denominator and that everyone got it free with the console. It's a small, insubstantial series of utalitarian tech demos of sports, all of which have been done far better in previous Nintendo titles. Whether granny finds it more accessible doesn't make it a better game. I'm not saying it's bad, but surely there's no way you could say that Wii Sports is on the same level in terms of quality of Super Mario Galaxy or The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. Both of which are masterpieces.
As for Mario Kart Wii, reviewers were perfectly within their rights to criticize it for the issue that it had. Again its huge sales are irrelevant to reviews. The weapons had been made totally unbalanced and turned many races into an unfair, random, chaotic mess until someone (probably someone who was in dead last...) happened to win. This is fine against friends, but trying to progress through the single player mode, being screwed out of every race at the last second by a deluge of unavoidable weapons from cheating AI was very annoying (they also ruined Battle Mode by bafflingly making it only teams, which isn't nearly as fun as all v all). Don't get me wrong, I love Mario Kart Wii. However that was an issue with it and I don't see why you think that reviewers should not be allowed to mention it. Surely that's their job? I think a Metacritic score of 82% for Mario Kart Wii is fair enough.
warioswoods2 @ Apr 10th 2009 10:06PM
@Vidikron
You're wrong on so many levels.
First off, your distinction between opinion and objectivity. My claim that reviews are not fundamentally subjective is not the same thing as claiming that there is an objective methodology that reviewers could apply. Those are completely different things; you are essentially claiming that something is either an opinion, and therefore fully subjective, or based on a methodology with clear rules that necessitate the conclusions. Most matters of real importance, from criticism to politics to whatever else, fall outside of the distinction you're making; the question of the merits of Wii Sports as a work digital entertainment is not a matter of mere opinion such that no one viewpoint would be more correct than any other. It is in fact a matter for real debate (and debate presupposes an objective matter of some sort under discussion), but a debate that will not be able to find resolution by means of any methodology. This means that one can be closer to or further from the truth (a reviewer can be wrong) but there isn't any single rule to apply in order to separate the bad reviews from the good; one just has to learn to read and enter into the debate on its points. It's so tiring to hear the usual internet nonsense of "everything's just opinion"; that's in incredible misunderstanding of what objectivity and debate are, not to mention a leap backwards a couple centuries in our understanding of aesthetics and critique.
"The scores for all games on all platforms is calulated using ther same methods, that's the definition of objective. If you disagree with the average then you should be looking to actual reviewers."
I've already covered how you are overly simplifying objectivity, but you point to my exact argument regarding Metacritic. As I said in my first post, Metacritic "compounds the problem." I think that's pretty clear, but to be as explicit as possible: yes, Metacritic simply average / aggregates review scores, so that they contribute nothing new, but it is in this illusion of objectivity that they make an already bad problem much worse. Gaming reviewers, as I've said before, are absolutely terrible at assessing a great deal of the gaming software on the market; Metacritic takes these bad reviews and tries to produce an objective score by simply combining a large number of badly written reviews. I do look at actual reviewers, and I find the vast majority to be dreadfully incapable of intelligent writing or analysis, which is why averaging them just makes it worse.
Lastly, your little fast-food analogy is a real gem. You're still passing over one of my original points, which is ever so salient here: gaming reviewers (and gaming blogs, magazines, etc) cater to a very specific demographic, and one which bases its identity on its ownership of a certain type of gaming. To make that clearer, these idiots running around on the web calling themselves hardcore are analogous to the kids around high school age who protect their musical taste as a mark of distinction, such that they have to disown one of their own favorite artists once they achieve public appeal, since there is then no longer any way for them to make their appreciation of the artist a mark of distinction or being part of an elite club of sorts. These are the kids who might, for instance, refer to the Beatles much in the way you refer to Wii Sports, as too accessible, etc, and they might use idiotic metaphors like fast food in order to describe their own taste in distinction from the masses.
The Beatles, however, were a great band, and their achievement of broad appeal is a part of their greatness. Yes, popularity by itself is no measure of quality, and there are plenty of things (summer blockbusters, let's say) that simply appeal to the lowest denominator. Some songs, games, and works, however, are able to achieve mass appeal by actually opening up an entirely new space within their domain, and changing the entire medium in such a way that they cause everyone to enjoy it in a different way. Wii Sports is like that; it completely changed the way people view social activity around their television, and it did it with polish and a very clever combination of simplicity and hidden depth. Any application developer, designer, or programmer would kill to have come up with such a well put-together package.
The "hardcore" gaming press just went down their dated lists, marking it negatively for graphics, number of gameplay modes, and other irrelevant criteria, and completely missed the boat in understanding how well the game achieved its goal, which was not, thankfully, to please 18-25 year old guys who like to sit alone in front of their TV for too many hours a day.
halongw77 @ Apr 8th 2009 8:02PM
No Deathrow I thought Xbox 360 had 48 titles above 85 so the order would be:
1. Xbox 360
2. PS3
3. Wii
Blkant @ Apr 8th 2009 8:04PM
By over all numbers yes, but thats very miss leading due to the fact that one is a year younger than the other. When you convert it to a percentage however, the PS3 comes out on top.
David @ Apr 8th 2009 8:52PM
No, percentage is misleading, because it implies that the PS3 has more titles rated over 85 than the 360, which is doesn't, and not by a small margin.
guttertalk @ Apr 8th 2009 9:25PM
No, David, it's not misleading . . . percentage is percentage. It's only misleading if you don't understand what percentage means.
And percentage is relevant if you're asking which platform is most likely to have a game rated 85 or better. Percentage is also a way of looking at platforms equally regardless of their time on the market.
I think this is all rather bogus anyway, because it doesn't consider that all games are not reviewed equally or by the same review sources. Plus, as a 360 owner, I could care less about most of those 85+ games. What matters sometimes is just those 2 or 3 games each year that I really connect with.
Cal @ Apr 8th 2009 10:48PM
But with gaming consoles the quantity of good games for a system rather than percentage of good games for a system is more important. By owning the system you aren't forced to play or purchase the bad games, you can simply choose to buy the good games.
Sokkratez @ Apr 8th 2009 8:02PM
Just when you thought that the atrocity that is review score aggregation couldn't get any worse.
WTG.
Blkant @ Apr 8th 2009 8:03PM
Edge sucks, just felt it should be said.
halongw77 @ Apr 8th 2009 8:21PM
Blkant, percentage has absolutely nothing to do with it. That is a useless statistic. The Xbox 360 has more good exclusives, period. The PS3 only has a higher percentage because it has less titles overall.