How the Wii Mostly Dominated This Generation; WTFMYTIGTART Edition

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"]The wii didn't win in exclusives. Games are rated relative the platform and wii clearly has lower standards. Ps3 exclusives are talke about all the time, while thed wii ones are hardly mentioned on the interwebz. Sushiglutton

EDIT: it's not in the Terms of Use, but the administration did clarify their reviewing policy, but I don't know where it's located.

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"][QUOTE="Bigboi500"]That bullsh*t excuse has been debunked by the admins and ToU. Try harder.

Bigboi500

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"][QUOTE="Bigboi500"]That bullsh*t excuse has been debunked by the admins and ToU. Try harder.

Bigboi500

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"] Link?Eddie-Vedder

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"] Link?Sushiglutton

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"][QUOTE="Bigboi500"]It's called the ToU. Look on the top of the threads here. The only thing Wii has "lower standards" in is graphics.

Bigboi500

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"] Here (http://www.gamespot.com/misc/reviewguidelines.html) it says: "We Rate Games According to the Current Standards of Their Platforms and Genres". And wii has much lower spec thus lower standards. Also the lack of third party support means a much less competition on the platform, which implies even lower standards.Eddie-Vedder

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"][QUOTE="Bigboi500"]It's called the ToU. Look on the top of the threads here. The only thing Wii has "lower standards" in is graphics.

Bigboi500

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"][QUOTE="Bigboi500"]It also says "a good game is a good game, no matter what system it's on". They've stated before that they review the consoles by the same standards.

Bigboi500

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"] Here (http://www.gamespot.com/misc/reviewguidelines.html) it says: "We Rate Games According to the Current Standards of Their Platforms and Genres". And wii has much lower spec thus lower standards. Also the lack of third party support means a much less competition on the platform, which implies even lower standards.Sushiglutton

No they haven't and no. You're basically saying a good phone game is equal to a good big budget pc game cause a good game is a good game. That's bs, light years away in standards and you know it. Eddie-Vedder

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"][QUOTE="Bigboi500"]It also says "a good game is a good game, no matter what system it's on". They've stated before that they review the consoles by the same standards.

Bigboi500

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"] No they haven't and no. You're basically saying a good phone game is equal to a good big budget pc game cause a good game is a good game. That's bs, light years away in standards and you know it. Eddie-Vedder

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]No they haven't and no. You're basically saying a good phone game is equal to a good big budget pc game cause a good game is a good game. That's bs, light years away in standards and you know it. Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]No they haven't and no. You're basically saying a good phone game is equal to a good big budget pc game cause a good game is a good game. That's bs, light years away in standards and you know it. Eddie-Vedder

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"][QUOTE="Bigboi500"]It's called the ToU. Look on the top of the threads here. The only thing Wii has "lower standards" in is graphics.

locopatho

The better the Wii controls are = more intuitiveness = better experience.

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"][QUOTE="Bigboi500"]Your phone reference is what's bs. Thinking the difference in graphics between the PS3 and Wii is the same as consoles to phone games is beyond ridiculous. McShea said that if SMG2 was on PS3 or 360 it would still have received a 10, so there you go.

Bigboi500

Look at this.

You're pretty much saying Iphone is the best gaming platform ever. Ever. EVER.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"] I'm gonna have to see a link to believe that, sorry. Sounds real fishy to me.Sushiglutton

[QUOTE="locopatho"][QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"] First off graphics is a major aspect of gaming, it's pretty much what makes PC gaming have higher standards. The Wii also has lower standards cause of online play, which is a MAJOR part of gaming this gen. m_machine024

The better the Wii controls are = more intuitiveness = better experience.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"] First off there are phones that have graphics just as good as the Wii's if not better, and second off you're pretty much trying to decide yourself where you can draw the line. That's not how it works. The difference is pretty much PC > 360/PS3 > Wii > Handhelds > Phones. Theres a difference in standards between all of these groups. You can pretend there isn't but there is, and anyone in gaming journalism knows it. Eddie-Vedder

Look at this.

You're pretty much saying Iphone is the best gaming platform ever. Ever. EVER.

Why don't you go look at Japanese rating averages for Wii and 360 in Japan, where you'll notice a favoritism for Eastern developed games over Western ones.

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Super Meat Boy--a cheap DD game--was nominated for game of the year in 2010 over big titles like God of War 3, Civilizations V, and Alan Wake which weren't even nominated.

Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="m_machine024"]

[QUOTE="locopatho"] Also controls. Wii games got praised when the controls work. Most other platforms, working controls are taken for granted.locopatho

The better the Wii controls are = more intuitiveness = better experience.

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]The fact that SMG2 received a 10 despite not having the same graphical capabilities as the other consoles says that what you claim isn't true.

Bigboi500

Look at this.

You're pretty much saying Iphone is the best gaming platform ever. Ever. EVER.

Why don't you go look at Japanese rating averages for Wii and 360 in Japan, where you'll notice a favoritism for Eastern developed games over Western ones.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"] Oh my God man, you're being thick, go to Metacritic or even here at gamespot and click on IOS games for example, they have a TON of games with AMAZING scores. SO they are great games but don't tell me they are equal in standards with GoW, Uncharted, Skyrim, The Witcher. Get real dude. Not sure how you're trying to trick here.

Look at this.

You're pretty much saying Iphone is the best gaming platform ever. Ever. EVER.

Eddie-Vedder

Why don't you go look at Japanese rating averages for Wii and 360 in Japan, where you'll notice a favoritism for Eastern developed games over Western ones.

[QUOTE="locopatho"][QUOTE="m_machine024"]...........OR when the controls are great, not just working.

The better the Wii controls are = more intuitiveness = better experience.

m_machine024

I bring forth teh ownage. Stevo and BigBoi read for yourselves.

"We Rate Games According to the Current Standards of Their Platforms and Genres

Every gaming platform is different, especially in terms of its technical features. However, we believe high-quality gaming experiences are possible on all the gaming platforms that we cover. So we review games against the standards of their respective platforms by implicitly comparing them to other games on that same platform and, to a lesser extent, to other games in that genre. As a result, our ratings of games on different platforms are not intended to be directly compared to one another. However, relative comparisons do apply, so a game that scores poorly is a poor game by any standards, while a game that scores extremely high is an outstanding game by any standards."

"We rate games on a scale of 1 (the absolute worst) to 10 (the absolute best). The rating we assign to each game is intended to give you an at-a-glance sense of the overall quality of the game relative to other games on the same platform."

Taken from Gamespot. Not only does the Wii have significantly less technical capabilities, which lower the standards, the lack of thrid party support also lowers the standards from a purely games pov.

The Wii has lower standards, thread invalidated.

Game Over.

I bring forth teh ownage. Stevo and BigBoi read for yourselves.

"We Rate Games According to the Current Standards of Their Platforms and Genres

Every gaming platform is different, especially in terms of its technical features. However, we believe high-quality gaming experiences are possible on all the gaming platforms that we cover. So we review games against the standards of their respective platforms by implicitly comparing them to other games on that same platform and, to a lesser extent, to other games in that genre. As a result, our ratings of games on different platforms are not intended to be directly compared to one another. However, relative comparisons do apply, so a game that scores poorly is a poor game by any standards, while a game that scores extremely high is an outstanding game by any standards."

"We rate games on a scale of 1 (the absolute worst) to 10 (the absolute best). The rating we assign to each game is intended to give you an at-a-glance sense of the overall quality of the game relative to other games on the same platform."

Taken from Gamespot. Not only does the Wii have significantly less technical capabilities, which lower the standards, the lack of thrid party support also lowers the standards from a purely games pov.

The Wii has lower standards, thread invalidated.

Game Over.

Eddie-Vedder

The only battle going on is the one you're having with yourself about accepting the truth. Hiding behind false beliefs, lame excuses and reviewers' opinions isn't a very healthy thing to do. Stop being a tool for one gaming company and go try to enjoy some good games. :)

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]

I bring forth teh ownage. Stevo and BigBoi read for yourselves.

"We Rate Games According to the Current Standards of Their Platforms and Genres

Every gaming platform is different, especially in terms of its technical features. However, we believe high-quality gaming experiences are possible on all the gaming platforms that we cover. So we review games against the standards of their respective platforms by implicitly comparing them to other games on that same platform and, to a lesser extent, to other games in that genre. As a result, our ratings of games on different platforms are not intended to be directly compared to one another. However, relative comparisons do apply, so a game that scores poorly is a poor game by any standards, while a game that scores extremely high is an outstanding game by any standards."

"We rate games on a scale of 1 (the absolute worst) to 10 (the absolute best). The rating we assign to each game is intended to give you an at-a-glance sense of the overall quality of the game relative to other games on the same platform."

Taken from Gamespot. Not only does the Wii have significantly less technical capabilities, which lower the standards, the lack of thrid party support also lowers the standards from a purely games pov.

The Wii has lower standards, thread invalidated.

Game Over.

Bigboi500

The only battle going on is the one you're having with yourself about accepting the truth. Hiding behind false beliefs, lame excuses and reviewers' opinions isn't a very healthy thing to do. Stop being a tool for one gaming company and go try to enjoy some good games. :)

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]

I bring forth teh ownage. Stevo and BigBoi read for yourselves.

"We Rate Games According to the Current Standards of Their Platforms and Genres

Every gaming platform is different, especially in terms of its technical features. However, we believe high-quality gaming experiences are possible on all the gaming platforms that we cover. So we review games against the standards of their respective platforms by implicitly comparing them to other games on that same platform and, to a lesser extent, to other games in that genre. As a result, our ratings of games on different platforms are not intended to be directly compared to one another. However, relative comparisons do apply, so a game that scores poorly is a poor game by any standards, while a game that scores extremely high is an outstanding game by any standards."

"We rate games on a scale of 1 (the absolute worst) to 10 (the absolute best). The rating we assign to each game is intended to give you an at-a-glance sense of the overall quality of the game relative to other games on the same platform."

Taken from Gamespot. Not only does the Wii have significantly less technical capabilities, which lower the standards, the lack of thrid party support also lowers the standards from a purely games pov.

The Wii has lower standards, thread invalidated.

Game Over.

Eddie-Vedder

The only battle going on is the one you're having with yourself about accepting the truth. Hiding behind false beliefs, lame excuses and reviewers' opinions isn't a very healthy thing to do. Stop being a tool for one gaming company and go try to enjoy some good games. :)

Your constant fanboy rants and delusions are quite sad. All the consoles are pretty cheap now, so even a weekly or monthly allowance should be enough to enable you to try new things and see that they're not so bad, and that you don't have to justify only having one system to play any more.

You're ignoring the standards that come attached with price. That is unwise. 1$ quality game, something like Angry birds is not the same as something like a 60$ The Witcher 2. Even if they both score 9. The quantity and quality is almost exponential. It's not just more, it gets more polished, refined and complex. Or are they equal? And to prove I know you know this is right, imagine you could pick the genres you wanted and the dev's you wanted to make the games and had a choice of choosing 10 AAA titles, but you had choose between arcade titles or bigger retail games. Obviously unless it was some F2P model or something the retail games would be more expensive and arcade games would most likely range the 5-15$ range. 99% of gamers on this board would pick the retail games. And we all know why.Eddie-Vedder

Are you just too broke to enjoy games that are on other systems? Or maybe you're just a school boy and your parents won't buy you another system?

Your constant fanboy rants and delusions are quite sad. All the consoles are pretty cheap now, so even a weekly or monthly allowance should be enough to enable you to try new things and see that they're not so bad, and that you don't have to justify only having one system to play any more.

Bigboi500

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]

I bring forth teh ownage. Stevo and BigBoi read for yourselves.

"We Rate Games According to the Current Standards of Their Platforms and Genres

Every gaming platform is different, especially in terms of its technical features. However, we believe high-quality gaming experiences are possible on all the gaming platforms that we cover. So we review games against the standards of their respective platforms by implicitly comparing them to other games on that same platform and, to a lesser extent, to other games in that genre. As a result, our ratings of games on different platforms are not intended to be directly compared to one another. However, relative comparisons do apply, so a game that scores poorly is a poor game by any standards, while a game that scores extremely high is an outstanding game by any standards."

"We rate games on a scale of 1 (the absolute worst) to 10 (the absolute best). The rating we assign to each game is intended to give you an at-a-glance sense of the overall quality of the game relative to other games on the same platform."

Taken from Gamespot. Not only does the Wii have significantly less technical capabilities, which lower the standards, the lack of thrid party support also lowers the standards from a purely games pov.

The Wii has lower standards, thread invalidated.

Game Over.

Bigboi500

The only battle going on is the one you're having with yourself about accepting the truth. Hiding behind false beliefs, lame excuses and reviewers' opinions isn't a very healthy thing to do. Stop being a tool for one gaming company and go try to enjoy some good games. :)

I bring forth teh ownage. Stevo and BigBoi read for yourselves.

"We Rate Games According to the Current Standards of Their Platforms and Genres

Every gaming platform is different, especially in terms of its technical features. However, we believe high-quality gaming experiences are possible on all the gaming platforms that we cover. So we review games against the standards of their respective platforms by implicitly comparing them to other games on that same platform and, to a lesser extent, to other games in that genre. As a result, our ratings of games on different platforms are not intended to be directly compared to one another. However, relative comparisons do apply, so a game that scores poorly is a poor game by any standards, while a game that scores extremely high is an outstanding game by any standards."

"We rate games on a scale of 1 (the absolute worst) to 10 (the absolute best). The rating we assign to each game is intended to give you an at-a-glance sense of the overall quality of the game relative to other games on the same platform."

Taken from Gamespot. Not only does the Wii have significantly less technical capabilities, which lower the standards, the lack of thrid party support also lowers the standards from a purely games pov.

The Wii has lower standards, thread invalidated.

Game Over.

Eddie-Vedder

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]You're ignoring the standards that come attached with price. That is unwise. 1$ quality game, something like Angry birds is not the same as something like a 60$ The Witcher 2. Even if they both score 9. The quantity and quality is almost exponential. It's not just more, it gets more polished, refined and complex. Or are they equal? And to prove I know you know this is right, imagine you could pick the genres you wanted and the dev's you wanted to make the games and had a choice of choosing 10 AAA titles, but you had choose between arcade titles or bigger retail games. Obviously unless it was some F2P model or something the retail games would be more expensive and arcade games would most likely range the 5-15$ range. 99% of gamers on this board would pick the retail games. And we all know why.Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]

I bring forth teh ownage. Stevo and BigBoi read for yourselves.

"We Rate Games According to the Current Standards of Their Platforms and Genres

Every gaming platform is different, especially in terms of its technical features. However, we believe high-quality gaming experiences are possible on all the gaming platforms that we cover. So we review games against the standards of their respective platforms by implicitly comparing them to other games on that same platform and, to a lesser extent, to other games in that genre. As a result, our ratings of games on different platforms are not intended to be directly compared to one another. However, relative comparisons do apply, so a game that scores poorly is a poor game by any standards, while a game that scores extremely high is an outstanding game by any standards."

"We rate games on a scale of 1 (the absolute worst) to 10 (the absolute best). The rating we assign to each game is intended to give you an at-a-glance sense of the overall quality of the game relative to other games on the same platform."

Taken from Gamespot. Not only does the Wii have significantly less technical capabilities, which lower the standards, the lack of thrid party support also lowers the standards from a purely games pov.

The Wii has lower standards, thread invalidated.

Game Over.

Lord_Omikron666

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]

I bring forth teh ownage. Stevo and BigBoi read for yourselves.

"We Rate Games According to the Current Standards of Their Platforms and Genres

Every gaming platform is different, especially in terms of its technical features. However, we believe high-quality gaming experiences are possible on all the gaming platforms that we cover. So we review games against the standards of their respective platforms by implicitly comparing them to other games on that same platform and, to a lesser extent, to other games in that genre. As a result, our ratings of games on different platforms are not intended to be directly compared to one another. However, relative comparisons do apply, so a game that scores poorly is a poor game by any standards, while a game that scores extremely high is an outstanding game by any standards."

"We rate games on a scale of 1 (the absolute worst) to 10 (the absolute best). The rating we assign to each game is intended to give you an at-a-glance sense of the overall quality of the game relative to other games on the same platform."

Taken from Gamespot. Not only does the Wii have significantly less technical capabilities, which lower the standards, the lack of thrid party support also lowers the standards from a purely games pov.

The Wii has lower standards, thread invalidated.

Game Over.

Lord_Omikron666

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]

I bring forth teh ownage. Stevo and BigBoi read for yourselves.

"We Rate Games According to the Current Standards of Their Platforms and Genres

Every gaming platform is different, especially in terms of its technical features. However, we believe high-quality gaming experiences are possible on all the gaming platforms that we cover. So we review games against the standards of their respective platforms by implicitly comparing them to other games on that same platform and, to a lesser extent, to other games in that genre. As a result, our ratings of games on different platforms are not intended to be directly compared to one another. However, relative comparisons do apply, so a game that scores poorly is a poor game by any standards, while a game that scores extremely high is an outstanding game by any standards."

"We rate games on a scale of 1 (the absolute worst) to 10 (the absolute best). The rating we assign to each game is intended to give you an at-a-glance sense of the overall quality of the game relative to other games on the same platform."

Taken from Gamespot. Not only does the Wii have significantly less technical capabilities, which lower the standards, the lack of thrid party support also lowers the standards from a purely games pov.

The Wii has lower standards, thread invalidated.

Game Over.

Sushiglutton

The only battle going on is the one you're having with yourself about accepting the truth. Hiding behind false beliefs, lame excuses and reviewers' opinions isn't a very healthy thing to do. Stop being a tool for one gaming company and go try to enjoy some good games. :)

They clearly state that they use a number of different measurements to judge a game, some against other games in the genre on multiple systems, some against other games on the same system.

By your argument I could say that motion control is of a higher tech than standard controllers, and gameplay is more important than graphics, so PS3 and 360 are held to lower standards. Of course I'd never stoop so low as to use that excuse in the first place.

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"][QUOTE="Bigboi500"]That bullsh*t excuse has been debunked by the admins and ToU. Try harder.

Bigboi500

EDIT: it's not in the Terms of Use, but the administration did clarify their reviewing policy, but I don't know where it's located.

Graphics, Physics, ai and audio.

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]You're ignoring the standards that come attached with price. That is unwise. 1$ quality game, something like Angry birds is not the same as something like a 60$ The Witcher 2. Even if they both score 9. The quantity and quality is almost exponential. It's not just more, it gets more polished, refined and complex. Or are they equal? And to prove I know you know this is right, imagine you could pick the genres you wanted and the dev's you wanted to make the games and had a choice of choosing 10 AAA titles, but you had choose between arcade titles or bigger retail games. Obviously unless it was some F2P model or something the retail games would be more expensive and arcade games would most likely range the 5-15$ range. 99% of gamers on this board would pick the retail games. And we all know why.locopatho

[QUOTE="locopatho"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Standards that come attached with the price? Or, otherwise known as "value." A game can offer little in terms of value, but be genre defining or exceptional. Journey on PSN is a relatively recent example of "poor value" but (supposedly) exceptional in its execution. You are riding on a high horse mantra that dictates retail "high budget retail" trumps all. 99% of the users on this board wouldn't blindly pick an array of titles simply because they're retail, or DD. That is silly.Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]You're ignoring the standards that come attached with price. That is unwise. 1$ quality game, something like Angry birds is not the same as something like a 60$ The Witcher 2. Even if they both score 9. The quantity and quality is almost exponential. It's not just more, it gets more polished, refined and complex. Or are they equal? And to prove I know you know this is right, imagine you could pick the genres you wanted and the dev's you wanted to make the games and had a choice of choosing 10 AAA titles, but you had choose between arcade titles or bigger retail games. Obviously unless it was some F2P model or something the retail games would be more expensive and arcade games would most likely range the 5-15$ range. 99% of gamers on this board would pick the retail games. And we all know why.Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="Lord_Omikron666"]

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]

I bring forth teh ownage. Stevo and BigBoi read for yourselves.

"We Rate Games According to the Current Standards of Their Platforms and Genres

Every gaming platform is different, especially in terms of its technical features. However, we believe high-quality gaming experiences are possible on all the gaming platforms that we cover. So we review games against the standards of their respective platforms by implicitly comparing them to other games on that same platform and, to a lesser extent, to other games in that genre. As a result, our ratings of games on different platforms are not intended to be directly compared to one another. However, relative comparisons do apply, so a game that scores poorly is a poor game by any standards, while a game that scores extremely high is an outstanding game by any standards."

"We rate games on a scale of 1 (the absolute worst) to 10 (the absolute best). The rating we assign to each game is intended to give you an at-a-glance sense of the overall quality of the game relative to other games on the same platform."

Taken from Gamespot. Not only does the Wii have significantly less technical capabilities, which lower the standards, the lack of thrid party support also lowers the standards from a purely games pov.

The Wii has lower standards, thread invalidated.

Game Over.

Eddie-Vedder

I'm sure SMG2 would have scored 10 on any system. However sheeps are trying to claim ownage with their exclusive library AA-AAAA. 8-9 can hardly be thought of as extremely high scores.Sushiglutton

[QUOTE="Lord_Omikron666"]

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]

I bring forth teh ownage. Stevo and BigBoi read for yourselves.

"We Rate Games According to the Current Standards of Their Platforms and Genres

Every gaming platform is different, especially in terms of its technical features. However, we believe high-quality gaming experiences are possible on all the gaming platforms that we cover. So we review games against the standards of their respective platforms by implicitly comparing them to other games on that same platform and, to a lesser extent, to other games in that genre. As a result, our ratings of games on different platforms are not intended to be directly compared to one another. However, relative comparisons do apply, so a game that scores poorly is a poor game by any standards, while a game that scores extremely high is an outstanding game by any standards."

"We rate games on a scale of 1 (the absolute worst) to 10 (the absolute best). The rating we assign to each game is intended to give you an at-a-glance sense of the overall quality of the game relative to other games on the same platform."

Taken from Gamespot. Not only does the Wii have significantly less technical capabilities, which lower the standards, the lack of thrid party support also lowers the standards from a purely games pov.

The Wii has lower standards, thread invalidated.

Game Over.

Sushiglutton

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]You're ignoring the standards that come attached with price. That is unwise. 1$ quality game, something like Angry birds is not the same as something like a 60$ The Witcher 2. Even if they both score 9. The quantity and quality is almost exponential. It's not just more, it gets more polished, refined and complex. Or are they equal? And to prove I know you know this is right, imagine you could pick the genres you wanted and the dev's you wanted to make the games and had a choice of choosing 10 AAA titles, but you had choose between arcade titles or bigger retail games. Obviously unless it was some F2P model or something the retail games would be more expensive and arcade games would most likely range the 5-15$ range. 99% of gamers on this board would pick the retail games. And we all know why.locopatho

On that note, picked up the awesome Tetris Evolution on the 360, it scored a 6.6 purely based on original price of $30 being too much and because "it's Tetris" :roll: (negative from the review). Still best version I think I can get hold of outside of somehow obtaining Tetris the Grand Master from Japan.

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"][QUOTE="Lord_Omikron666"]You missed something there buddy.

Lord_Omikron666

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"] I'm sure SMG2 would have scored 10 on any system. However sheeps are trying to claim ownage with their exclusive library AA-AAAA. 8-9 can hardly be thought of as extremely high scores.Bigboi500

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"] I'm sure SMG2 would have scored 10 on any system. However sheeps are trying to claim ownage with their exclusive library AA-AAAA. 8-9 can hardly be thought of as extremely high scores.Sushiglutton