Specialist press outlets are playing casual games wrong

[dschumm]

My problem is not rating a casual game poorly if it has flaws like the Transformer analogy. It just seems to me that there is a ceiling that casual games can't get past. Carnival games got a 56 which is a little harsh. But Wii Sports and Rayman Ravin Rabbits got a 76. Those are arguably the best casual games in years and certinaly some of the best the Wii has to offer but due to certian reviewer 's bias they get a 76. Sure they had their flaws too but a similar level of flaws in a hardcore game garners a 90+.

It is much like comedies at the Academy awards. Most actors will say the hardest thing to do is make people laugh, but you have to cry or make someone cry on screen to win an award.

My other pet-peeve is that few reviewers play these games with other people. Even if they do and mention the fun then fail to have thay affect the score. But if a game has online like Halo it suddenly gets tons of bonus points for the innovative feature. Rediculous.

Roger Ebert often mentions that his thumbs rating has more to do with his belief that the target audience will enjoy it, than if it is artistic perfection. Sure perfect movies get a thumbs up but so does a lot of casual fare. I propose that game reviewers use a dual sytem. A rating and a simple thumb up or down. They can be as harsh as they feel necessary on the score but give a yes or no to people based on if the game will serve potential buyers well.

Some reviewers are changing their tone but due t the popularity of metacritic and gamerankings it takes a shift in the whole industry. Which is why I want to start a casual centered review site. WiiSports = 9.5 Halo 3 = 7.5