Tomb Raider Wii “decent” says IGN
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007 at 12:40pm by Blake
IGN has posted their 7.0 review of Tomb Raider Anniversary, a budget game I’d like to play some time this holiday. From the review:
The Wii control additions really do add to the experience and the game looks pretty good, too. The end product is not exemplary, but it is a step in the right direction and it’s also entertaining, particularly when you’re jumping from ledge to ledge or swinging across chasms to the beat of moody music. Although I think it’s just as good as previous versions of Anniversary, I’ve lowered the score of the game on Wii because little effort has been made to capitalize on the added horsepower of Nintendo’s console. That the framerate regularly suffers in wide-open levels is really disappointing. I wouldn’t call it a deal breaker, but an unfortunate oversight.
Worth the $40 asking price?
November 15th, 2007 at 12:24 am
I found it odd that they say the Wii controls “Added to the experience” and “the game looks pretty” yet they rated it lower than the PS2 and PSP versions. WTF?
November 15th, 2007 at 12:52 am
Yeah I agree.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:24 am
I think they’re coming from the perspective that “everyone who owns a Wii must have already owned a PS2 anyway.” They’re not reviewing the game itself, they’re reviewing the stuff that’s new in this port.
Which is fine and all, seeing as how all the Wii owners who didn’t own a previous console are probably not going to care about Tomb Raider. But speaking only for myself, owner of a Wii and PS2, I’ve never played any Tomb Raider game at all. I look forward to eventually getting this for the Wii to see what all the fuss was about. Brilliant adventure platformer, or low-poly Indiana Jones with a mammoplasty?
November 15th, 2007 at 4:00 am
I think they lowered the score because “little effort has been made to capitalize on the added horsepower of Nintendo’s console”.
November 15th, 2007 at 7:48 am
@drhock,
Yeah, I read that. It didn’t make any sense. They are basically saying,
“The Wii version is just as good or better than the other versions, but because its not a LOT better, we’ll actually score it worse”.
Lame.
November 15th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Well, the real question is: “Do you have higher expectations for Wii games than you do PS2 or PSP games?”
If so, then a lowered score is appropriate when faced with the exact same game on those platforms listed above. I know that I have higher expectations for a Wii game than I do a PS2 game. Just like if an N64 game showed up on the PS3, it would be panned. Different systems = different expectations = different review scale.
November 15th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
“Well, the real question is: “Do you have higher expectations for Wii games than you do PS2 or PSP games?””
I don’t think thats the question at all. If that were the case, the 360 version would have had MUCH lower scores because expectations should be high for such a powerful console.
And even if that WAS the question, I would answer emphatically, “no”.
Some of the best games EVER have been released on the PS2. A generational leap, whether its in graphics or control doesn’t necessarily make for better games. Even with as much power as the 360 has, if it is able to deliver HALF of the great games PS2 has, it will be successful. So, no, I don’t expect better games on the Wii then we had on the PS2, not at all. I can only hope the Wii is able to deliver as many great experiences as the PS2 has. In all likelihood, it won’t. I doubt even PS3 will be able to do it. Here’s hoping I’m wrong.
November 16th, 2007 at 8:22 am
“I don’t think thats the question at all. If that were the case, the 360 version would have had MUCH lower scores because expectations should be high for such a powerful console. ”
Now now, you’re trying to twist my words around here. I never said that the expectations should center around graphics or horsepower. You should not expect better games on Wii because the machine is slightly more powerful than PS2, because that’s not why you bought a Wii. You bought a Wii because you wanted to see what fascinating things developers could do with the Wii Remote. So if the game comes out, and the Wii remote is marginalized to a bunch of waggle added onto a PS2 port, then your expectations are not being fulfilled.
A 360 game might have higher expectations in the graphics area, but a control scheme that pales compared to even PS1 games. You buy a 360 pretty much soley based on the horsepower of the box, and the online capabilities. If a 360 is lacking in THOSE areas, then your expectations are being fulfilled.
I have higher expectations for the Wii than I do the PS2, because the Wii can do everything the PS2 can do, and more. If it doesn’t capitalize on that “more” component, then my expectations are not being met.
You review games based on your expectations for the game. Your expectations for the game depend in what platform the game is being played on. I can’t fathom on how either of those statements aren’t true.
November 16th, 2007 at 8:40 am
“You review games based on your expectations for the game.”
Wow, I couldn’t disagree more.
And I’m not sure, but did anniversary have a deep online component? Based on what you’re saying, should one expect that on the 360? Should a game be docked if it doesn’t have online seeing as the platform is really designed for it? Perhaps a game like Bioshock should get low scores on the 360 since most people expect 360 games to be heavy in the online arena.
No, I think part of the reason reviews are broken is because people review based on expectations. People should review a game based on the game. Is the story interesting? Does the game play well? Is it fun? Those sorts of things. Assassins Creed is a good example. I think its getting punished in its reviews due to people having unrealistic expectations. Perhaps if they reviewed the game based on what it does, and not what the review THINKS it should do, it might fair better.
To review a game based on expectations is really to decide what a game SHOULD be before you’ve ever played it and that doesn’t make any sense to me whatsoever.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Hmm… I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here, so I think maybe I’m having trouble voicing my opinions properly. But there’s something flawed about not taking the system’s strengths into consideration when reviewing a game. For instance, if Mario 64 came out today on the Wii, there’s no way it would score the 10s it did back in 1996. Standards have changed. The Wii is capable of so much more. Our expectations have raised mainly due to the change in platform (which is a result of the change in technology)
No, Bioshock shouldn’t be slighted for missing an online component, I agree wiht you. But that’s because Bioshock takes advantage of the OTHER Xbox 360 features well. It has beautiful graphics. The sound is amazing. The art direction is unrivaled for the most part. The AI is good, and the story is well written. These are things that the 360 excels at - building an immersing environment by using realism achieved through technology.
The Wii is a superior platform to the PS2 in terms of what it offers to the consumer, so the consumer has a RIGHT to expect a game to be better on the Wii than the PS2. If not, why buy a Wii? The Wii offers advantages in control, so the Wii version should control better. If it doesn’t, why buy a Wii? To deny that our expectations should raise with each system is to deny that there is a NEED for next gen systems. Maybe we should all be playing NES still.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:40 am
“if Mario 64 came out today on the Wii, there’s no way it would score the 10s it did back in 1996.”
This is a straw man. We’re not talking about an 11 year old game. We’re talking about the same game separated by a few months. Lame.
“Bioshock shouldn’t be slighted for missing an online component….because Bioshock takes advantage of the OTHER Xbox 360 features well”
So, who decides which features/expectations a game must meet? Your criteria evolves to correctly encompass whatever you want to say. Again, lame.
“The art direction is unrivaled for the most part.”
But do we expect unrivaled art direction on a 360 game? Maybe I expect online on the 360, NOT art direction. Thats the whole point. Our expectations vary too much for them to be the basis of a games review. Certainly we want a game to take advantage of hardware, but according to what you’re saying, a game like Geometry wars should get a poor review because it doesn’t take advantage of the system. (feel free to change your point, such that high scores on Geometry Wars make sense in your world)
“The Wii is a superior platform to the PS2 in terms of what it offers to the consumer”
Is it? Or is it different? Maybe its broader in its reach but superior is debatable.
“If not, why buy a Wii?”
Because its different. Is a stereo better than a television? I would say no, but I’ll still always own a stereo. “better” is not the only reason we buy consoles, if it were, there wouldn’t be multiple console homes. People would just own the “best”.
“Maybe we should all be playing NES still.”
Again, an incredibly lame straw man.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:02 am
“This is a straw man. We’re not talking about an 11 year old game. We’re talking about the same game separated by a few months. Lame.”
It illustrates my point. Calling it lame doesn’t explain how it fails to illustrate my point. Different consoles generate different expectations. It’s true when they’re 11 years apart, and it’s true when they’re 1 week apart.
“So, who decides which features/expectations a game must meet? Your criteria evolves to correctly encompass whatever you want to say. Again, lame.”
A game must play to the strengths of it’s console. I’m claiming that the 360’s strengths are a strong online system and incredible realism through technology. Bioshock meets one of those strengths very well. I never claimed it has to play to ALL of the systems strengths. My criteria hasn’t changed since my first post. If Tomb Raider is worth releasing on the Wii, it should play to the Wii’s strengths. Otherwise it’s not worth anyone’s time.
“But do we expect unrivaled art direction on a 360 game? Maybe I expect online on the 360, NOT art direction. Thats the whole point. Our expectations vary too much for them to be the basis of a games review. Certainly we want a game to take advantage of hardware, but according to what you’re saying, a game like Geometry wars should get a poor review because it doesn’t take advantage of the system. (feel free to change your point, such that high scores on Geometry Wars make sense in your world)”
Geometry Wars DOES play to the strength of the Xbox - it’s a downloadble original game. One of the strengths of the Xbox is a wide library of downloadble, cheap original games. The game is $5. It doesn’t need to be a masterpiece of graphics and story. If every game was $5, this wouldn’t be an issue - we’d all just buy it all. I fail to see how I’ve changed my point on anything.
“Is it? Or is it different? Maybe its broader in its reach but superior is debatable. ”
I’ve seen a million and one posts about how the Wii control scheme is superior to dual thumbsticks. Maybe it’s not, but then the argument is about whether or not Nintendo has done ANYTHING revolutionary for the Wii. If the Wii control scheme is not superior, this argument is pointless. That’s a whole other discussion. I’ve seen many many people on this site argue that the Wii control scheme is superior to everything else out there. I don’t necessarily agree, but here I’m just going with the consensus.
“Because its different. Is a stereo better than a television? I would say no, but I’ll still always own a stereo. “better” is not the only reason we buy consoles, if it were, there wouldn’t be multiple console homes.
Talk about lame arguments? The PS2 and Wii are not as different as a stereo and a TV. A stereo and a TV serve two fundamentally different purposes. A Wii and a PS2 are not that far apart in the grand scheme of things. The Wii isn’t designed to be “different”, it’s designed to be “better.” I believe the word that they’ve been using is “revolutionary.” Again, whether or not I believe that this is true (I don’t) is irrelevant, I’m simply going by consensus. The Wii is *supposed* to be superior. Call my arguments lame, but the fact remains. If the systems weren’t supposed to be getting better as the technology gets better, we would hold the same expectations for NES games as we do for Wii games. That is absolutely not the case.
“People would just own the “best”.”"
Your argument here is flawed, because no one can decide what “the best” is. 95% of the people on this site would say the Wii *is* the best, because Wii controls are more important to them than graphics.
I’m NOT SAYING that graphics are super important. I’m simply saying that a game should play to the strengths of it’s platform, and in the case of Tomb Raider, it clearly hasn’t been improved by the attempt to do so.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:27 am
There is no consistency at IGN between review scores for the same game on different platforms. The Wii reviewer said that the Wii controls add to the overall experience, yet it scores lower in the ‘Gameplay’ category than the 360. The ‘Graphics’ on the Wii version score higher than the 360 version too. How can they dock the Wii overall score for not using the power of the Wii to its fullest, yet don’t do the same to the 360 when the review of the 360 version says that sunlight makes the game “come to a near screeching halt.” And unless one platform’s version is vastly inferior, I don’t see how they could score differently in the Lasting Appeal category, yet the Wii scores lower, even though “Wii control additions really do add to the experience.”
If you read both reviews and look at the final scores, it makes no sense that the overall score for the 360 version is a 7.6 and the overall score for the Wii is a 7.0. IGN should know that readers who own multiple consoles look to their site (and others) to determine which version to buy, and if they don’t use the same reviewer on all versions, they should at least coordinate the points and scores so they make sense.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
“It illustrates my point.”
But it doesn’t refute what I”m saying. Thats why its a straw man. You can mischaracterize what I’m saying and make up your arguments all day long, but it won’t get us anywhere.
Suffice it to say, I believe a game should be reviewed simply on its merits, NOT on whether or not it is what the reviewer expects it should be or not be.
If its a good game, give it a good score. If its a bad game, give it a bad score. Many of my favorite games have been completely different than what I expected. As a gamer, I’ve learned to set my expectations aside so they don’t distract from what the developers are trying to offer. In my opinion, a good reviewer will do the same. Simple really.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
@zarkseven,
Thanks. You clearly get what I’m saying. And no, I don’t think your comments imply that we should be playing the NES forever.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
If you’re going to grade something, you have to have criteria. My argument simply supplies some of that criteria. Your argument seems to be “there are no criteria.” That’s not how criticism works.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Oh, sorry, I forgot to mention in my first post.
“If Tomb Raider is worth releasing on the Wii, it should play to the Wii’s strengths. Otherwise it’s not worth anyone’s time.”
I disagree here as well. I think you may be assuming that everyone that owns a Wii also owns other systems that carry the game. If you only own a Wii, you certainly might think its worth your time to play a game like tombraider, even it doesn’t utilize all the Wiis strengths.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
“If you’re going to grade something, you have to have criteria.”
I agree.
“Your argument seems to be “there are no criteria.””
See, this is where you’re mischaracterizing my comments. Thus all the strawmen. I”ve never said there are no criteria. Nor have I implied it. I think you debating a stance that I’m not taking.
There are most definitely criteria on which to base a review score. I’m just saying that what the reviewer expects the game to be, shouldn’t necessarily be one of them, otherwise we let hype and marketing dictate reviews. And furthermore, if the same game is released on 2 platforms, the reviewer should not score the better version lower, simply because its not as good as it could have been. IF the same game is good on one console and slightly better on another (as was the case with anniversary), it should not get a lower score IMHO.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Also,
Andrew, let me say that as much as we are COMPLETELY different in many of our views, I really enjoy your responses. Despite our constant disagreements, I feel like you’re a person I would love to sit down and have a drink with to hash out the problems with the industry. Keep that in mind as we clash.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Agreed, cisco. And thanks for the sentiment. And I think that for the most part, I’ve finally come to understand where our point of contention is - I agree that we’re not exactly arguing about the same thing here.
Also, I’ve never heard the term straw man before in this context.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
FWIW:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
5. Oversimplifying a person’s argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.
Person A: I don’t think children should play on busy streets.
Person B: I think that it would be foolish to lock children up all day.
In our case:
Person A: I don’t think reviewers should let platform expectations
dictate a review score.
Person B: Maybe we should all be playing NES still.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Gotcha. I wasn’t honestly suggesting that we should all be playing NES. I’m just saying we move onto the next systems because they offer the promise of better games. If they fail to live up to that promise, then we’re upgrading to newer game systems for no reason.
Of course, this all hinges on whether or not you consider the Wii an upgrade to the PS2. You claim that they’re simply different. While I don’t disagree with that at all, I think you and I would be in the minority amongst Nintendo fans. Nintendo fans would argue that the Wii control scheme is better than the PS2s, so Wii games should use it.
Now of course, my argument is kind of flawed when you look at a game like New Super Mario Bros, a game which uses about 1% of the DS features that make it unique. I present an argument as follows: What makes that game (New SMB) a better fit for DS as opposed to PSP? I submit that the game would be a better fit for PSP, because it would look better and could theoretically have the exact same control scheme.
The problem I have with the review above is that they’re criticizing the game for not taking advantage of the Wii’s extra horsepower. A year into the lifespan of the system, we’ve learned that it’s not the extra horsepower that makes the Wii an upgrade from the PS2 - it’s the “better” controls.
Ack, I’ve lost my train of thought. Anyways, I think I’ve lost sight of the point I was originally trying to make. Is it Friday yet?
November 16th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Its friday times 10!
I hear what you’re saying. And in a way you’re right.
“Nintendo fans would argue that the Wii control scheme is better than the PS2s, so Wii games should use it.”
Ok, lets try this. I’m a Nintendo fan (clearly). And while I think the Wii control scheme is POTENTIALLY better than the PS2 in MOST cases, I would not say that it is INHERENTLY better. Thus we have a situation where motion controls may actually be worse, as I’m sure you’ve experienced.
That being said, I would rather a developer NOT use motion controls if the alternative is to use them poorly. Also, I see a lot of other potential in the Wii (that makes it worth a purchase) beyond what exists on the PS2 besides the controller, but as you say thats a discussion for another day.
“I submit that the game would be a better fit for PSP, because it would look better and could theoretically have the exact same control scheme.”
Without regard for ownership demographics, you are absolutely right about NSMB being a good fit for the PSP, perhaps better than the DS.
But, I would add, that even if NSMB were released on the PSP in the same state it exists on the DS (graphically and control wise), it should get a similar review score even though the graphics aren’t pushing the PSP.
Anyway, its been fun, as usual.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
“But, I would add, that even if NSMB were released on the PSP in the same state it exists on the DS (graphically and control wise), it should get a similar review score even though the graphics aren’t pushing the PSP.”
And I think that’s really the only thing we’re actually disagreeing on here. And as to that, I’m simply willing to agree to disagree.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
“And as to that, I’m simply willing to agree to disagree.”
Well, I suppose. But only because its Friday!
Cheers