Reviews are for gamers, and to be more precise, traditionally reviews are for core gamers. That means they review games in a way that core gamers should be able to agree with. If someone wants to review casual games for casual gamers, I'm OK with that - I can just skip that rubbish.

no it would be unfair that a game with much better graphics and much more depth to gameplay gets rated lower or the same as a casual game.

casual games tend to be rubbish which is why they are in that casual category in the first place.

95plus after you got the rabbids dlc?

No mention of Call of Duty?

It's not a sports/kids game but it sure as hell has a massive userbase of people that happen to be very casual gamers.

I think the Just Dance series is a clear example of where game critics really failed.

I applaud every reviewer that trys to review any game based on the expectations and needs of its audience be it a review of Halo or a review of Imagine: Babiez.

Unfortunately, not all of them do it, and then you get famous reviews like IGN (the American branch) giving Football Manager 2/10 (whilst IGN UK gave it 9.1/10) because the American reviewer didn't understand what the hell it was.

Indeed, some very good points made, but it is odd that reviews have this odd disconnect - the text is written with the target audience in mind, but the score is not. I think that is the source of the problem that many have with reviews of casual games.

I totally agree with the op. Even when they do try and explain why the game might appear to be great for casuals, they categorically always mark it as a hardcore game. 

The problem is this. There is no other industry which has a stigma attached to it. Gaming has become a stigma orientated medium as far as critics go. In where if it's either A) not exclusive. B) Huge budget or C) sat down playing with a controller the game is already stamped lower before the reviewer has actually played. 

It's so true it smacks us all in the face like Monty Python and the fish. 

The problem is none of the reviewers have casual people reviewing casual games. What is the point of having veteran FPS player in the office review Kinectimals for example. Kinectimals is designed for 6 year olds. How can an adult categorically review a game of which they will find simple, boring and not interesting. Yet to a 6 year old it might be the most fun they ever had from their TV. 

I would like to see critics passing reviews for casual games to the audience that plays them. Lets get average joe to play these games they like. I'm sure most media enterprises have people with kids and families. And I'm sure they are inteligent enough to come up with a question system for these kids to guage there review. 

Gaming media has quite a bit of stigma to it. And I'mk attempting to change that. It's just taking me time.

Miyamoto gave his pre-release games to his kids and the dev's family etc to play while he observe them.

If he sees them smiling and having fun, it's a go.

Gaming critics have failed everyone with their piss poor analysis of games (OMFG  COOOLZ GRAPHIX = 10/10) and their utter fanboyism towards certain consoles or franchises. Don't believe they just have it out for casuals.