Aside from a few places, this statement is very much correct...

what do you expect.  its like having the guys on espn review a lifetime channel movie

its flawed from the start

While I wouldn't say it goes quite that far, there are clear obsessions from certain groups.  I mean, on Gametrailers, every Assassins Creed game got a 9.5 or above.  Yet in their reviews, they cite the games having a clear lack of variety haflway through, graphics bugs and a lack of flow.  Yet when it comes time to review Batman: Arkham Asylum, which pretty much fixed every point they said was a negative for Assassins Creed, they score the game lower.  Despite having no real negative views on the game and even admitting it was one of the best games this gen.

In other words, yes, personal bias fits heavily into reviews.  So people have to realize this when expecting their favorite game to get a 9.8.  If Bozon or Craig doesn't like the game that much, expect it to go down a few points.

Hell yeah... you know I actually went out to buy more wii points but it turned out that till the 30th of april the DLC is free... it's only 1 song but now my gf is dancing with the Raving Rabbids = priceless..

I agree. That's what I do. However, most hardcore gamers seem to care a lot about the numerical score. I'm wondering if the typical casual gamer does the same.

This ^

Aside from Mario Galaxy 1 and 2, what other major games out there got above 9.0 on Wii?  Metroid Prime Trilogy, Resident Evil 4, Twilight Princess, Smash Bros Brawl....oops, that's about it.  And all those games came out over 3 years ago.

My point wasn't that Wii didn't have some high scoring games.  Its that across the board, Wii has been ignored for the HD consoles.  Hell, even Muramasa, New Super Mario Bros and Donkey Kong Country Returns got scores under 9.0 on most sites.  And those are suppose to be the 'core' games by most people.

On the flip side, these are the same people who gave games like GTAIV, Little Big Planet and MGSIV near perfect scores, mostly for graphics.  But aside from those examples, there are far more games rated above 9.0 on PS3/360 than on Wii.  And most of the time, the reasons cited are graphics and popularity (both for the HD systems and against the Wii).  Despite Wii games obviously outselling many PS3/360 games.

When it all adds up, you see a bias towards 'core' games and against Wii games.

I'm not going to say games on the HD consoles suck.  I own a PS3 and I think games like Assassins Creed, Batman: Arkham Asylum and Bayonetta should easily have scores over 9.0.  What I AM saying is, many of the good games on Wii were overlooked.

Popularity..........he probably means that if a new Halo were to come out for example, and they messed the gameplay and story up but it still looked great graphically, just because of the already established popularity, it would scor about 80% whereas a better, but less known game(I assume he's talking about wii games specifically) would score about 70%.

Wait, what?  So why else does a game deserve a 9.0 rating?  Graphics?  And frankly, the games I name DID deserve over a 9.0.  Unelss you're trying to compare Muramasa or Donkey Kong Country Returns to like, Crysis 2 and Assassins Creed II, which seems to be how reviewers are doing it.  And even then, that's pretty bias considering PS2 got the most games over 9.0 last gen while having the weakest graphics.

You kidding me? Reviewers have been giving good scores to all sorts of casual games this generation. Just look at CoD.