Why not?

See my post above yours.

tl;dr: Even Nintendo stated Wii games are less powerful and meant for a different market than the games on HD consoles.  And most third parties agree.  So why should games like DKCR, Muramasa and Epic Mickey be compared to Assassins Creed or Uncharted?  Its like comparing Final Fantasy to Mario....they hit totally different markets.

And, as I pointed out, this bias didn't seem to be present when the PS2 was out.  Many games would be upscored, even for their graphics, compared to XBOX/GC games.  Some good examples were such as Grand Theft Auto or Resident Evil 4.

I guess i agree, the art style could be very popular if marketed well, not neccessary like a kid only game, but also for adults. like the way Nintendo have tried to make Pokemon popular with the mature audience with graphics, gameplay, etc.

agreed, SE is stupid, but they are stupid for other reasons also.

i agree with the auidence at this point. i think i have a problem with most RPGs in this respect. the question is how you can keep an ordinary player invested in the game when they die and have to restart at the nearest checkpoint.

the problem is by making a game like this your making it for the same people who've always bought it. i think developers need to make games more accessible to people not like us, who wouldnt normally play this type of game.

i think the difficulty factor could be addressed by a simple easy, normal and hard mode. fair enough the hardcore gamers dont want an easy mode, they can play it on normal, new players go on easy - everyones happy. imo DQ should do this to make the series more accesible in the west - and i think it would be popular.

In all fairness, DQ as a series has done a LOT to appeal to the west.  They added voices to DQVIII and DQSwords.  And the DS games were remade specifically because Yuji Horii wanted to 'allow for people to be able to play the games outside Japan'.  Seeing as DQV and VI were never released outside Japan, and Dragon Warrior IV on NES goes for like $80-$100 used.  And even back in the NES days, they gave away free versions on Dragon Warrior (about 500,000 copies) as a massive campaign to try to get the series popular.

Also, there's unconfimed reports that DQIX was originally going to be more action focused to try to appeal to the west.  But Japan complained and they kept it turn based.  Frankly, I agree.  Dragon Quest is the one series that got turn based fighting down correctly.  With more options in battle than a standard JRPG, spells like Evac and Zoom, items that cut down random battles, dying only takes away gold but returns you to town with all experience and items (not returning you to a save point with all progress lost like FInal Fantasy)...there's really no reason for people to complain about DQ game engine.  9 times out of 10, people complain because they won't adapt to the system (IE: They're playing Dragon Quest like Final Fantasy or Golden Sun and get mad because they keep dying).

If anything, the series has tried to force itself on the west, but it never caught on.  Mostly because all these stunts were coupled with weak or a total lack of advertising.  It was only with DQIX that Nintendo stepped in and gave the series the advertising it needs.  And, shock!, it sold well.

Yeah this is true actully, i forgot you only loose half your gold when you die, its not actully game over. my point was however that a gamer who dies is going to have to replay the same part again - this could be boring or tedious for most western gamers, who are interested in things like FPS and GTA.

so i think by creating a system that is easy for them will make the series more accessible in the west. however i agree DQ is a series that has done well to adapt to the market, the voice acting in DQ8 was exceptional. and the story was very nice, presented very well. i'm sure those who played it in the west loved it!! its just getting the rest of those FF gamers in on it now! and i'm sure they would play it if it was easy, its just the perception is that it is difficult.

maybe they dont want to adapt, in this sense i think the game should be adapted to cater to their needs also.

Well, my point was, they have all the added experience and items they gained the first time, making a revisit to a dungeon (even if you die) a lot faster.  And in theory, you shouldn't die the second time because of the added EXP and item boost.

Compare this to something like Final Fantasy.  You can play 2 hours through of dialogue, dungeon crawling and etc.  Then you get to the last boss...and die.  Not only are you taken to the main screen of the game...you've lost all the 2 hours of added experience AND have to watch all the cutscenes again.  Many people get on my case about this, but this is why I say Final Fantasy games take more 'grinding' than DQ games.  Because if you come to an unbeatable boss which you can't beat at a certain level, you HAVE to grind to beat it or you die and lose all EXP.  Whereas in DQ, if you die to a boss, you still have the added EXP and such, making the next try that much easier.

Also, adding a easy vs hard mode to DQ wouldn't really help.  It would just make people think the 'hard' version requires grinding, while they complain the 'easy' mode 'plays itself'.  Also, in all DQ except maybe II and VII, the difficulty is very well balanced based on your rate of exploration and item collection, as well as your skill in battle.  Making an easy mode would just further encourage people to play the game only using buffs and heals.  Then they would never figure out all the other options in battle.

If you actually have a problem with a certain review on a certain site, then support it with evidence.  Don't just fall back on the 'reviewers hate the Wii' argument that we've been hearing for years.

Let's take a look at those three.  IGN, Gamespot, and Gametrailers

Kirby
IGN: 90
Gamespot: 85
Gametrailers: 84

Donkey Kong
IGN: 90
Gamespot: 85
Gametrailers: 90

AC: Brotherhood
IGN: 80
Gamespot: 85
Gametrailers: 90

Yes, curse those biased assholes.  If only they'd give Wii games a fair chance!   Oh wait.....

As for Metacritic, Donkey Kong has no Critic reviews under 70, and only 3 user reviews under 70.  Kirby has two critic reviews under 70 (two 60's) and the same for the user reviews.  I wouldn't say either of these games have had users or critics intentionally trying to bring the score down with onscenely low scores.

The numbers show that battles aren't that easy compared to other RPGs. The damage monsters give remains considerable unless you do loads of level grinding.

Sure the games aren't as brutal as the first Dragon Quest, and the first Final Fantasy, and the first two Phantasy Stars, but they seem to have stuck with the same difficulty level since DQ III or IV.

I really don't weant to belabor this point.  But basically, you're cherry picking.  Assassins Creed I and II both got 9.4 and 9.5 respectively on GameTrailers.  Brotherhood probably got a 9.0 because it was deemed 'good but more of the same'.

But remember my main point.  Aside from a handful of games (10 or so that I can count), all Wii games avg below 9.0.  Even some thatare deemed for the 'core' gamer like Muramasa, New Super Mario Bros Wii, Epic Mickey, Tatsunoko vs. Capcom and Monster Hunter Tri.  And a lot of the top rated games on Wii are ports of older games (Okami, Metroid Prime Trilogy, Resident Evil 4, World of Goo, etc).  But anyweay...if you don't precieve a downsocre for Wii games, I don't really need to change your mind.

Also, I really shouldn't have brought up Gamespot.  They give so many games a generic 8.5....

I'm cherry picking?  I am just using the games you listed and the sites you listed.  Brotherhood makes the most sense because it launched within a month of Kirby and Donkey Kong.  Thus it would have the same editorial team, and the same general expectations.  The first AC would not get the same score in 2010 as it did in 2007.  Speaking of cherry picking, I like how you went to the highest score for AC I & II, and not IGN's score of 75 for the first game.  By the way, GT gave them 9.1 and 9.2 respectively.  9.4 and 9.5 are the user scores.

There are tons of 'core' games on the HD systems that don't get above a 9.0.  Monster hunter on the PSP didn't get above a 9, guess they hate the PSP.  Monster Hunter on the PS2 didn't get above a 9, guess they hate the PS2.  Look at that, the Wii version is the best rated game in the series.  Even on those three biased sites.  And guess what, Tatsunoko vs Capcom has the same average score as Marvel vs Capcom 3.  One point higher than the PS3 version even.  I don't know, what would be a good comparison for Muramasa?  Odin Sphere maybe?  That only scored 2 points higher, not close to a 90.  Do you honestly feel that Epic Mickey deserved a score over 90?  NSMB might be your best argument, but an 87 is still a good score.  Plus if it had been on the PS3/360 it would definitely have still been knocked down a few points for not having online.

The problem with your main point is you seem to think every game that you consider good should have a score over 90.  Just go scroll through the list of games scoring in the 80's on the PS3 and 360.  There are tons that are just as deserving as the games you listed.  Just to rattle off a few quick ones....

Demon's Souls
Heavy Rain
Wipeout HD
Valkyria Chronicles
Mortal Kombat

Now I'm going to guess if those games were on the Wii, you'd be listing them to support your argument.

I'm not even trying to argue that game reviewers don't have biases.  I for one will never understand how Harmonix games get such good scores.  My point is you were just throwing out the names of games and sites that don't in any way support your argument.  You probably would have been better off just saying 'Reviewers hate the Wii' because I doubt I would have bothered actually checking the scores then.