Game critics have failed casual gamers, in my opinion. Never a great casual

[tolu619]

I actually hope to be corrected here, but I believe there has never been a casual game given a score of 95% or higher by any of the major game critics. The criteria for rating a game should be 'How well does it do what it set out to do? How much fun is it? How innovative is it?'. Whenever a 'hardcore'(for lack of a better or more universally understood term, I'll be using this) game excels at two out of the three criteria I mentioned, it will most likely have an average score of 85% across different critics. On the other hand, a casual game can excel at all three of the same set of criteria and yet have an average score of 75%. It's like they rate casual games with these criteria:1. How innovative is it(ok, that's a good start) 2. How much would someone looking for a hardcore experience enjoy this game (now that's the wrong way to look at it) 3. How nice would these graphics look to a graphics whore? 4. How much replay value is here for a hardcore gamer? I really think something has to be done about this as the industry has expanded but it seems critics refuse to acknowledge this. Also, I usually wonder whether casual gamers check reviews before deciding what to buy like most of us hardcore gamers do. I'm guessing that if they do, they pay more attention to the text/video than the final score because many casual games with mediocre scores sell very well.