yeah. once in a while i see reviews in newspapers and those tend to diverge with the video game critic's scores. those reviews probably influences "casual" buyers more anyway.
personally, i find RPG's and FPS shooters a waste of time. most of them are so complex or so long that it's more like a project than a game. if i'm gonna review those games... well, that's why i'm not reviewing those games. and that's why hardcore gamers shouldn't use their standards to review those "casual" games.
in general the "fun" factor is not emphasized enough for these games. a lot of reviews i've read basically goes like a checklist. good depth? check. good visuals? check. good gameplay? check. good controls? check. good replay value? check.
for casual games, there simply should be a different set of criteria that emphasizes different aspects. easy visuals? for one. crystal clear presentation? another. accessibility? yep. easy to pick up and just play? important. relevence to personal experience? yeah. justification for playing? absolutely.
more on "justification for playing": for gamers, you play a game if it's fun. for casual players--or at least a significant portion of them--you need more than just "fun". my friends and i agree on this. we feel guilty about playing games and not doing work, so we find justification to playing them. family, exercise, mental training, whatever. usually the excuses are flimsy, but that's better than none.
the Wii is an epidemic.
