Edge analyzes Wii, PS3 review scores

We can take one thing for certain from this analysis -- there's a lot of crap out there for the Wii. Then, we can use the same analysis and try to determine which among the PS3 and Xbox 360 is ... better.

We might conclude that because the PS3 has a higher percentage of games that scored 85+, it's a better system. But the 360's larger quantity of such games cannot be ignored.

If a consumer were to buy either a PS3 or a 360 today, which system would provide him with a greater number of highly rated games from which to choose? The answer is the Xbox 360. The next logical counterargument to this is, "Yeah, but a game that scored 85 in 2007 wouldn't score an 85 in 2009." This might be true, but probably because of graphics, not gameplay innovations. And if graphics are the only thing that matters, should the Wii have no games at all that score 85 or higher?

The fact is, three year old games that were good upon release are still good now. Gaming connoisseurs have a greater high quality selection on the PS3 than on the Xbox 360.

Stiil, it's not by much. And if your must-have franchise is exclusive to one system, that's probably the system you'll buy. I bought a Wii because I wanted Super Mario Galaxy, and I bought an Xbox 360 because I wanted Halo 3. When God of War 3 releases, I may purchase a PS3, but a price drop would go a long way towards that.

i dont get it, why does it say 17 percent and 30 percent of ps3 games? that doesnt add up to 100%. did 53% of games have a negative score? is this a joke?

Edge, ah yes, the site that always seems to have the lowest scores for every game on Metacritic. Someone must piss in their coffee daily.

I'm not surprised. Most good Wii games are only made by Nintendo. Just like the gamecube.

to further illustrate the stupidity of edge magazine. lets look at their track record:

edge magazine Metacritic
resident evil 5 70 86
bioshock 80 96
gears of war 80 94
fallout 3 70 93
mass effect 70 91
cod: world at war 60 84
condemned 60 81
prince of persia 50 81
saints row 2 50 81

they always give reviews that are way off average. hence, i do not read nor support them. they are probably giving bad scores to try and be controversial so more people will read them. i would recommend gamePro, game Informer or any other future publishing mag (xbox, ps3, pc gamer).

my bad

It seems Joystiq is ignoring a glaring issue in this study. The most important statistic is how many games have been made for each respective console. The percentage is not as important as the ratio. EDGE needs to release this data or this study will remain conclusive of nothing.

Personally, I stopped listening to game reviewers a long time ago. I should be the one to decide if I like a game or not, not some guy with a number scale and a possible bias.

when 17% games of the ps3 are 4-5 games, it's not a really important score.

4% of wii games are lots of games.

I'm a bit surprised about the 360 though, I thought it would be higher than 13% because of the number of hyped shooters on it (I'm not bashing it, I bought one, but not for shooters), and because most of ps3 games are also for 360, wich means there is a high chance that some of the 17% of the ps3 transferred to the 360 too.

As a note, even as a serious and core gamer, I don't care a bout reviews scores, really, reviewers are so biased against the wii (or the 360 too as I saw now that I entered to that realm), or maybe when they know something that's characteristic of a franchise (a reviewer from ign complained that RFF was too slow paced, wich is actually good and usual for a HM game), and even more basic, their opinions are just that, opinions, you can like something that nobody else likes, and most reviewers aren't impartial and base their scores on their likes. That's why scores don't say anything.

I think is contrary to what Edge said, I think casual care more about the scores because they don't know how to choose a game without reading a magazine or a review, as they usually play what's more popular or what have better scores. they don't go watching gameplay trailers, reading pages of text about the game, visit the game's website, following it's news and development, reading about other players experiences about the game (not the opinion about the game, but facts, like the loading times, glitches, number of characters, game time, etc).

Didn't notice that I wrote that much lol.

IGN gave NMH a 7.8 (or around there), much below the 85 EDGE or the consultant group lists as the average needed to justify a game as "good". Yet I'm sure a lot of the people here would claim it as an example of how "GOOD GAMES DONT NOT SELL ON TEH WII!"

Scores are subjective (EDGE would be a perfect example of this) and are only around because people on the web feel the need to start a dick waving contest over "which games are bestest" because, as I've stated before, the internet just can't deal with having 2 products that have similar functions coexisting with one another. If you read a review just to see what the score is, you are a sheep. Thats why I applaud Joystiq and Kotaku (I feel dirty mentioning them in the same sentence. IM SUCH A WHORE) for instead of focusing on whether a game is an 8.9 or an 8.8, they tell you whether or not they enjoyed it. They cut through the crap to. They'll tell you straight up what they liked and what they hated.

hey numbers

Wow. I am very tempted not to visit Joystiq again just because of all the stupid idiots that downvoted my comments. I simply stated the facts.

The Xbox 360 had 48 titles with ratings of 85 or above while the PS3 had 36. Period.

I was just reading an article on gameham.com the other day that talked about how comparing the PS3 and the Wii is like comparing apples to monkeys... two completely different things. Why do these even matter?

I'd like to see the same comparison but with games that are on both platforms removed. I think the PS3 may still come out on top but the list of 85%+ games may be countable on a single hand.

AsciiSmoke

I wonder what these tests look like for PS2... 99% shovelware?

I think its well established that the Wii games has a lot of mediocre crap and only a handful of truly excellent games. Even worse, is that a lot of the shovelware isn't even reviewed (and the Wii has plenty of shovelware). So the true figure of games scoring below 65 is probably even worse than The Edge found.

Why has the Wii got such dismal scores? Probably because no 3rd party expects to match Nintendo for sales so the game budget reflect the lower expectations. Coupled with that is a mainstream install base (i.e. ignorant owners) which means even less incentive to make decent games because people don't read reviews as much.

Another issue is that the PS3, 360 and PC can share substantial amounts of code, audio / graphical assets. This equates to lower cost per platform compared to the Wii which is out on its own.

"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)." thats gotta be the truest sentence i've ever read!

News flash. Most Wii games are garbage. News at 11.

I own all three, but I believe that I'd rather have all the good games, ie both PS3 and Xbox 360, plus tons of questionable quality games that I can get for $10 and enjoy. There is a lot of down time between AAA games and grabbing a Naruto game to fill the time never hurt anyone. That is where the xbox excels and the wii excels too much.

Two words: Ninjabread Man

This would be much more meaningful if reviews were at all accurate.

Game reviewing is a joke, so it doesn't really matter

Damnit, I hate review scores. I don't have a Wii and never plan on getting one, but this is just stupid.

It shouldn't be split between 85% and above and 60% and below. Its basically saying only 85% and above games are really good. Which I would argue is so not the case. We need to get back to the point where people thought games that were in the 70% range were good. Anyone who has some sense still realizes that but so many people see a 70% and just pass it up. There's a lot of good games around that area, especially if you are a fan of the genre. *sigh*

For all the hate it gets, Wii Sports was very good for what it was, and has offered the most fun on a current gen system for many (I'm clearly not talking about ALL of you) "gamers" and "non-gamers" alike.

I think the low-ish scores it rec'd from most major and blog outlets indicate a failure of "gaming journalists" as reviewers to properly review the title for its audience, for what it was, and most importantly, for fun factor.

The fact that so many games that I and millions of others enjoy (read shmups, post Act-zero Bomberman games that are actually great, Wii sports/fit/music, addictive puzzle games, niche titles like endless ocean, etc., etc.) are given relatively low ratings -- despite achieving exactly what the developers set out to design and providing fun experiences -- is a shame... Especially if it results in would be players over looking them in favor of a myriad familiar of highly rated action- fps- and rpg- titles that are no more fun, unique, or accomplished w/in their genre then the lower rated games.

And for your record I enjoy me some action, fps, and rpg games. I just think it's stupid that the bulk of them rec'd drastically higher ratings then something like Wii Sports which literally revolutionized gaming.