At Metacritic, the game has a metascore of 59, based on 9 reviews.

The user score is 85, based on 10 reviews.

That's a 26 point difference.

First of all, does anybody know of a game with a bigger difference between metascore and user score?

(Other than Just Dance, which has a metascore of 47 and a user score of 80, making the difference 33, but that's a casual dance party game, so of course the reviewers hate it more than the target audience.)

Now... onto my rant:

The main complaints by most of the reviewers seem to be

A) it's too hard

and

B) the save points are too far apart.

Those are valid complaints, but I think they are awkward when they are made about a retro remake of a game from 1988 that was

A) much harder

and

B) had NO save points, making it impossible.

So far I'm only in the water area, but I have to say that hovering is much easier, having your hover-fuel recharge (instead of hunting it down for hours) makes it MUUUCH easier, and being able to save your game makes the game actually possible, especially with the map that shows you where save points are.  Now when I die, I go "aw crap I have to go back to my save" instead of throwing a NES controller through my TV and getting grounded.

They also complain about the controls, saying they're frustrating and/or cause cramps.  I have no idea what they're talking about.  Can it be that many reviewers hate simple platformer/shooter controls where you have 1 button for shooting and 1 button for jumping?  Or can it be that somehow all reviewers are bad at 80's games and I am a pro because I'm such a crazy retro nerd?

This is all mind-boggling.  Anybody pick this game up?  Does the game have horrible controls but my nostalgia-goggles won't let me admit it?  Or are these reviewers just picking on a small cheap WiiWare game that's great for its price and for its target audience (which is apparently just me)?

Plays decent to me.

Reviewers are too casual and whiny to take the time and play hard retro games. "waaaaaaa, why doesn't this game have regenerating health like MW2?"

Pretty much the reason I hardly pay attention to reviews like to used to in previous generations. It seems they are too "hardcore" for their own good........

It's just too hardcore for them, and not enough buttons lol

It's more like... it's gaming where you actually have to put in serious effort to beat it. It's not holding their hand through the whole game, so they'll dock it there. Add in the fact that it's not "Oooh, pretty graphics" AND the fact that it's a Wii game, and you have a recipe for low reviewer scores.

After all, how many "professional" reviewers actually want to, you know, PLAY the game? They'd rather take some pretty screen caps and sell it to the slobs that gobble that stuff up en masse, not caring about any other aspect of gaming.

The game is too simple, the more complicated and harder to learn, the best score it will have. See Metal Gear Solid 3 reviews.. And they don't have epic stories or whatever. IGN has Super Mario World at 89 and Super Mario Bros 3 at 95 (funny thing, they complained of NSMB Wii being lackluster compared to past titles, yet it has the same score as SMW.)Oh, and the games are too hardcore to them.

same reason why contra 4 didn't win every game of the year award the year it came out, reviewers are complete and utter half wusses. Too much pudding that 's their problem

so why did demons souls get great reviews. That game is really hard too.

It's a PS3 game released when reviewers were having a honeymoon with the machine.  Also, it's not retro. >.>  Not being on Wii helps too.