Just in theory, it would pretty much make the 360 the platform of choice for GTA and really boost sales vs the PS3. So the 360 would keep ahead of the Wii for a while longer, or indefinitely. Wouldn't make a dif in the rest of the world imo.

The real question is how much money does it have to loose MS before it gets sacked. MS makes alot of money, but without the Gaming division they would've made even more. It'd take the 360 being profitable and the next Xbox being profitable all the way through to have a chance at making a return on their investment. A price cut could kill that dream.

[QUOTE="Lilac_Benjie"]

Metroid Prime 3
No More Heroes
Super Mario Galaxy
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
Virtual Console
Super Smash Bros Brawl
Final Fantasy
Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition
Battalion Wars 2
Resident Evil Umbrella Chronicles
Disaster Day of Crisis
NiGHTS into Dreams 2
Fire Emblem Goddess of Dawn
Warioware Smooth Moves
Zack & Wiki

No wonder Wii deserves respect. Expect more announcements of game releases for 2008 as developers migrate from completed Playstation 3 games that will not earn them as much money due to a larger Wii install base and cheaper development costs on the Wii.

I am glad that in 2010 there will be lots of serious hardcore games on the Wii that use motion sensing. It would have been a shame if this thing was a fad.

ByFly

those 2 look intresting but the rest of'm???

err...thats the whole idea. you think they plan for every consumer to buy everygame?

Your interested in 2, if you buy it for 2 games...they still sold a console...and 2 units of software. If you buy the console and those 2...you'll probably buy more games.

Balanced? No.

Best selling console? No, I don't even really think it'll be the top seller by the end of the generation.

-RPGamer-

But the real question is balanced regarding what? Genres or Markets?

Markets wise, it is balanced 1st Party, 12 VC and 2-5 3rd party releases a month. They are covering hardcores, causuals and non-gamers maybe not with the quanity but across the release schedules seems pretty balanced to me.

Genres...different story, there just isn't enough volume to contain a fair represenation, where is the variety in platformers, shooters and RPGs?

So, Balanced? Depends.

Best selling console? tough call...Iwata would love it but IMO it could go either way. They need to keep the good games coming, they definitely can though.

With the start they have had, I think its a lil short sighted to say they can't outsell the PS2 lifetime figures.

Why would GS change the rating system in an ovbious effort to make the site more accesible i.e. casuals (cuz non-gamers really wouldn't be looking at reviews for games).

However they are still slamming the crap out of casual games, don't get me wrong but Harry Potter: OotP should sell like crazy to causual who won't even bother to read the review but on an off chance they do, they'll just write off GS as too critical as its their 'new favorite game'.

Thats the way I see it, the system is too retarted to get any real respect from hardcores but the reviews are still very critical. So who are they trying please?

*sigh* I really hate this new system. I miss the break down, it just made so much sense. Specially for graphics/sound scores which aren't as easy to gauge from the review.

[QUOTE="Majatt"][QUOTE="_Pedro_"]

it was never about the score it was about the review. I can't believe how many people only go by scores.

HuusAsking

Not everyone has the time to sit down and read 3-6 or how many ever reviews come out everyday. Alot of people buy, rent and borrow games on multiple platforms, so reading the full review is reserved for certain games where its deemed necessary.

If the score served no purpose, it wouldn't be there. The main score w/the break down made it easy to say "ok doesn't seem be a real top quality game but it seems to have some merit, I'll glance through the review and see if its still worth renting."

I hadn't even remembered that but to be honest if I, personally, was trying to decide which version of a game to get, I'd read the review. If its online heavy get it on PC, or if one version had more content etc. but the score was usually an early indicator.

it was never about the score it was about the review. I can't believe how many people only go by scores.

_Pedro_

Not everyone has the time to sit down and read 3-6 or how many ever reviews come out everyday. Alot of people buy, rent and borrow games on multiple platforms, so reading the full review is reserved for certain games where its deemed necessary.

If the score served no purpose, it wouldn't be there. The main score w/the break down made it easy to say "ok doesn't seem be a real top quality game but it seems to have some merit, I'll glance through the review and see if its still worth renting."

Thats rubbish. Why not just re-prioritize?

Put more emphasis on the Superb, Great, Good, etc. and OR add an at a glance score with increments of 1. So 10/10, 9/10 etc. and then when you got indepth get your 9.3 with the break down [9-9-10-7-8].

The medals are all well and good but what little I respect I had for gamespot reviews is now gone. The graphics and sound score don't move me too much, but the gameplay and value scores usually did carry some meaning to me. At least it explained why a game scored high and while I found the reviews were a bit biased to technical prowess rather than gameplay, with the breakdown I could still kinda work out what I'd get from the game.

With this rubbish the only possible way to get any value from the review is to read the whole thing, which I usually did if I was really interested or if I felt the numbers didn't tell enough of the story.

Simplifying the front end for casuals is fine, destroying the depth...unacceptable.