You know what the problem here is?
You guys are blaming a reviewer for not tailoring a review to all demographics.
Reviews are for gamers. That is their demographic. I mean gamer not in the wii fan-endorsed sense of the word as "person who plays a game", but in the traditional sense. Someone who buys games, memorizes the various aspects, subscribes to magazines or goes to websites to look up upcoming releases. Someone who would answer "what do you do for fun" with "I play video games".
Those people are who most reviews are meant for. That score is perfectly matched to meet the tastes of that demographic. Sure it seems unfair, and maybe you think that they are "not judging the game for what it is", but that is an illogical argument. If they did that, review sites and mags would lose so many readers for giving a game like just dance the same score as Halo, or Gears. In theory, Just Dance should have that kind of score because a lot of people like it and consider it great quality. In practice, it would just lead a lot of gamers into buying games that will not meet their criteria of quality.
This is the problem with the review system. It isn't some unfair bias. It's the demographic. The review system has been tailored to the demographic because the demographic is what supports it. That is why it has always been said, "find some reviewers who share similar tastes and stick with their opinions and recommendations".
And sorry. Sorry that metacritic will not work for wii games (in general). Sorry that a big gamer site will not favorably rate a casual or wii game (in general). Stick with the reviewers you agree with, or start your own Wiicritic meta-analysis to get scores which match the fanbase. As such, it doesn't quite exist outside of teen magazines or cosmo. But hey, where there's a need, there's a niche. Go out and create something, you wily entrepreneur you.
Essay Pro