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.

what casual games would you score that high??? cause i cant think of many that deserve 90% or higher, hell i cant think of a lot of games that deserve that high a score. only 3 games i could think of that deserve a 90 or up this gen ones a Wii game, ones a PS3 and the other is DS. Heres my thing, you these games to be treated equally as the other genres do, but when they dont get the scores you think they deserve all of a sudden, we shouldnt be judging said games in the same way?? Its either one or the other. 

In my opinion games are either good or bad. And you have to read to decide if you think you should listen to the reviewer. The type of game it is you have to decide for youself in the review.

for example
If the graphics in a casual game suck, they suck. If you don't care, that's all good, but that doesn't mean the graphics aren't poor artistically or technically.

If the sound is bad, the sound is bad.

Gameplay... this is a tricky one.  That's why you must read. I mean Kirby's Epic Yarn is the easiest game ever (pretty much) and it still got good reviews. 

I mean transformers is a bad movie to most critics. the plot, script and acting are considered horrible.Which normally equates to a bad movie objectively wise. However, if all you want is special effects and megan fox's ass for it to be a good movie for you then it's a good movie. And a few reviews will say this.

I'm sure good reviews describe what's in the item being reviewed so you can make your own decision.
 

Actually, reviewers do a pretty decent job with casual games, you just have to read the actual review instead of just looking at the score. They have an audience to attend to, but in every casual review I've read, they've made sure to mention that the game is perfectly suitable for someone looking for that type of experience. It's like with Kinnectimals, reviewers aren't that high on the game, but they acknowledge that it's a quality product for children and family. 

I'd argue that casual games are being reviewed better than most Japanese games, now that's an audience that's glanced over and misunderstood, goddamn.

I'll give another example, I like survival horror games, most reviewers don't like survival horror games, but they do acknowledge that some people do like the genre and so they mention that in their review, they'll give their opinion and then say that the game is aimed at a specific audience, it's just the he or she isn't a part of that specific audience.

People need to read more than scores, I have problems with reviewers, but they aren't all hell bent on hating everything casual, half of them barely play 'core' games outside of the ones they are assigned and mainly stick to their Ipads, DS and random party game (mostly Rockband).

I'm speechless. Well going by your criteria on how games should be rated, every game should be rated 95%.

what casual game do you think deserve's a 95%?

Just Dance 2 deserves a 90plus rating

enditall727 said: what casual game do you think deserve's a 95%?

Depends on your definition of Casual.  But I'd say:

Sim City 3000

Super Mario Galaxy

Kirby's Canvas Curse

etc.

Anyway, its natural for sites like IGN or magazines like Game Informer to be harsh on the 'casual' games.  Not only are they appealing to the 'hardcore' market, but they themselves are people who grew up playing what they considered 'core' games.

What I'm mad about is how reviewers have been so obviously bias against Wii and DS games.  And even considering 'graphical limitations', they've obviously been downscoring both Wii and DS games with a clear bias.  And not just the 'casual' titles, but the actual good titles on the systems.

Not that this is surprising as they practically did the same think for the GBA, N64 and GC.  But never this bad...

psrock said: I'm speechless. Well going by your criteria on how games should be rated, every game should be rated 95%.

really? what did I say that implied that?

people should actually read a review to see if a game is for them, then basing their decision on an arbitrary numerical score.