Data From MetacriticPebkac said:I didn't say they were all bad. If you must know why so many are bad, it's partly because casual gamers don't spend as much time playing them as hardcore gamers and thus have a lower requirements, but mostly because the games are made by small inexperienced development teams, and generally pumped out as fast as possible, as cheap as possible.Worm104 said:If all these casual games are so bad why are Sony and Microsoft so keen to jump on the bandwagon. There are some good games on the wii but it's commercial success means more games are created for it so less are good percentage wise.
There are also so "good" looking games coming up including Murumasa: Demon Blade, Capcom vs Tatsunoko, Red Steel 2 and Monster Hunter 3. Granted they don't look as good as they would on another system but all 360 and PS3 games would look better on a top end PC.
There aren't more games on the Wii. Not unless you count the wii-ware re-releases and GCN games. Having less good games percentage-wise is just bad.
Top-end PC gaming graphics doesn't have anything to do with this.
Games on Wii: 454 Top 20 Metascores: 97-85
Games on PS3: 384 Top 20 Metascores: 98-88
The wii has almost 20% more games than the PS3 while the top scores games are on a pretty similar range. Therefore the mass poor games bring the average standard down, as I said earlier. Not that it matters, just because a bad game is on my system doesn't mean I have to buy it.