Is Metacritic biased against the Wii?

I believe it to be so. One of the major features of this generation is to be able to download games of old onto one's console. However, the Wii is evaluated differently compared to the Xbox360 and PS3. These older games aren't listed the Wii while they are listed on the Xbox360 and PS3. Check out some of the samples.

Xbox 360
Rez: Originally made for the Dreamcast. Ported to the Playstation 2.
Castlevania Symphony of the Night: Originally made for the Playstation.

PS3
Marvel vs Capcom 2: Originally designed for the Dreamcast. Ported over to the PS2 and Xbox.
Gunstar Heroes Originally designed for the Sega Genesis.

Wii
http://www.metacritic.com/games/wii/alpha/

Even when looking in the Wii section, the list lacks some of these older games. Some of these games include games such as Gunstar Heroes and Space Harrier. While some of the games are modified on the PS3/Xbox360, the same is true for some of the Wii games. There are sometimes modified content or added content. The Arcade port of Space Harrier was revamped with some new control schemes, in addition to a difficulty setting and unlimited lives.

Almost every game critic is biased to Wii.

Gyoza wrote:Almost every game critic is biased to Wii.

True. Very true....

Their not critics dumbasses.

Then why is there name Metacritic

Actually I believe that Metacritic simply do averages. Although their ratings a lot of the time are inaccurate.

Gyoza wrote:Then why is there name Metacritic

The Prefix Meta
1 a : occurring later than or in succession to : after b : situated behind or beyond c : later or more highly organized or specialized form of
2 : change : transformation
3 [metaphysics] : more comprehensive : transcending —usually used with the name of a discipline to designate a new but related discipline designed to deal critically with the original one
4 a : involving substitution at or characterized by two positions in the benzene ring that are separated by one carbon atom b : derived from by loss of water

I don't know, why is the prefix "Meta" there?

SiLeNtDo0m wrote:Although their ratings a lot of the time are inaccurate.

Because they don't weight every game as a perfect ten?

SiLeNtDo0m wrote:Actually I believe that Metacritic simply do averages.

At least someone did their homework. Unlike someone whose name might be Gyoza but I will not be specific in who exactly.

most of them games are shovelware that's why they have a shit score

sikokiller wrote:most of them games are shovelware that's why they have a shit score

You realize that comment is irrelevant to the subject I brought up?

Gyoza wrote:Almost every game critic is biased to Wii.

No, no they're not.

Godwind wrote:

SiLeNtDo0m wrote:Although their ratings a lot of the time are inaccurate.

Because they don't weight every game as a perfect ten?

Actually no what I meant was that when doing calculations they have a tendancy to go a few marks off the actual average. Compare the scores to those on Gamerankings (which are actually correct to 2 d.p) and you will see (and be sure for yourself as well by calculating the average for yourself).

SiLeNtDo0m wrote:

Godwind wrote:

SiLeNtDo0m wrote:Although their ratings a lot of the time are inaccurate.

Because they don't weight every game as a perfect ten?

Actually no what I meant was that when doing calculations they have a tendancy to go a few marks off the actual average. Compare the scores to those on Gamerankings (which are actually correct to 2 d.p) and you will see (and be sure for yourself as well by calculating the average for yourself).

So your pissing about few a decimal points?

Can anyone explain the difference between a game that has a metacritic average of 89/100 to a game that got 90/100?

Gyoza wrote:Almost every game critic is biased to Wii.

because they toss over and cum on their ps3 and 360

Godwind wrote:

SiLeNtDo0m wrote:

Godwind wrote:

SiLeNtDo0m wrote:Although their ratings a lot of the time are inaccurate.

Because they don't weight every game as a perfect ten?

Actually no what I meant was that when doing calculations they have a tendancy to go a few marks off the actual average. Compare the scores to those on Gamerankings (which are actually correct to 2 d.p) and you will see (and be sure for yourself as well by calculating the average for yourself).

So your pissing about few a decimal points?

Can anyone explain the difference between a game that has a metacritic average of 89/100 to a game that got 90/100?

You really need to calm down. I simply mentioned a point and you somehow manipulated it to seem as though I was moaning. I simply said the ratings are inaccurate because they are. That can't be denied.

SiLeNtDo0m wrote:

Godwind wrote:

SiLeNtDo0m wrote:

Godwind wrote:

SiLeNtDo0m wrote:Although their ratings a lot of the time are inaccurate.

Because they don't weight every game as a perfect ten?

Actually no what I meant was that when doing calculations they have a tendancy to go a few marks off the actual average. Compare the scores to those on Gamerankings (which are actually correct to 2 d.p) and you will see (and be sure for yourself as well by calculating the average for yourself).

So your pissing about few a decimal points?

Can anyone explain the difference between a game that has a metacritic average of 89/100 to a game that got 90/100?

You really need to calm down. I simply mentioned a point and you somehow manipulated it to seem as though I was moaning. I simply said the ratings are inaccurate because they are. That can't be denied.

When did I ever say I was angry? The fact that you were pissing about an extra 2 decimals places aka to the hundreth place, a very insignificant value. What is the meaning of the accuracy for such an insignificant value, especially when trying the measure the quality of a product through arbitrary numbers.