A lot of your counter-points seem to be bringing up specific bias certain sites have against certain genres of games.

Again, it was an opinion in the first place.  Based on my perception over the years of certain games seemingly getting downscored.  But this has been going on since the N64 in my opinion, and was 10x worse in the PS2/XBOX/GC years.  My views mostly cross over from that period.  I will admit, its gotten a little better in the last 2 years on sites like IGN, but that's mostly because many of the past people at IGN left like Matt, Bozon and etc, replaced by a whole new 'Nintendo' team.  ESPECIALLY Bozon, who actively stated on numerious occasions (even his reviews) that he dislikes JRPGs and 'casual' Wii games.  Yet he was given the vast majority of JRPGs and 'casual' Wii games to review....

http://gonintendo.com/viewstory.php?id=113139

On the flip side, both the coverage and reviews for Wii games seem to have gotten worse on sites like Game Trailers.  With games like Boy and his Blob, Muramasa and Kirby's Epic Yarn getting lower scores than the avg.  And they had a pretty bad review of Sonic Colors (6.4) where its pretty evident they only played the game for like 3-4 hours at most.  But again, this is just how I precieve it.

Also, what you said about PS3 and Wii games getting reviewed by the same editorial team.  That's not correct.  At least not on sites like IGN.  They have different people rating each console.  And again, a lot of the games you used as examples for the PS3 side seem to show a negative bias towards some genres.  Mostly JRPGs.  However, on  GameTrailers, Mortal Kombat got a score of 9.4.  For some reason IGN game it the low score...further proving reviews are highly subjective.  Just like this argument, sadly.

If it is a specific bias against certain games, then I guess there was no Wii bias in your examples then right?  You can't say Monster Hunter Tri scored low because it is on the Wii, and then just claim reviewers are biased against the whole series since the rest of the games scored lower than Tri.

You can say it's an opinion, but when you use outright lies to support your opinion you can't expect people to respect it.  Like now with Gametrailers.  You say that A Boy and His Blob, Muramasa, and Kirby got lower scores than average. 

A Boy and His Blob
Meta: 80
GT: 85

Muramasa
Meta: 81
GT: 83

Kirby
Meta: 87
GT: 84

So, that's one for three.  But is 3 points really worth getting up in arms over?  I'm guessing you aren't annoyed over the seven reviewers who gave Kirby a 100.  A 13 point difference is quite a bit different than 3.  If it weren't for them, the average probably would be 84 or lower.

Now, to be fair, Sonic Colors did get a rather low score from GT, but let's look at one of their newest reviews.

The Conduit 2
Meta:68
GT: 79

Not the same gap as Colors, but substantial nonetheless.  It also doesn't really show a systematic bias from GT.  Let's look at some other recent Wii games.

De Blob 2
Meta: 78 (higher than the PS3/360 versions by the way)
GT: 84

Mario Sports Mix
Meta: 64
GT: 65

Epic Mickey
Meta: 73
GT: 82

Donkey Kong Country Returns
Meta: 87
GT: 90

I think that's probably enough to dispell the idea that GT systematically rates Wii games lower than the average.  Getting back to IGN, how can you say they have been better in the past two years when you called them out (twice even!) for being one of the biased sites.  You even said things were better in the first couple years of the Wii.  So which is it?  Is IGN good or bad?  Were they good from 06-08 or from 09-now?

I'm not going to bother looking back to the N64 or Gamecube days.  It is hard to take your word on what went on 10-15 years ago when your recollections of current games seems to be faulty.

This argument may be subjective in regards to the scores we would personally give games, but looking at past review scores is most certainly objective.

Alright dude, you 'won'.  Despite the fact that I previously said, in every post no doubt, that these are just my opiniond and entirely subjective.

And I'd also like to point out you're comparing all my examples to metacritic, which we previously both stated was inaccurate.  Hence why I'm not really bothering to bring up counter examples to all these points.  That and I already admitted that reviews themselves differ from site to site and are entirely subjective (see a trend here?)

So then what are you comparing them to?  What 'average' are you comparing GT to when you say it is low?  Metacritic isn't perfect, but my complaints were more directed at the user reviews.  Any review aggregator will have the same issues, so why bring up averages at all? 

There is a pretty big difference between saying 'I think Kirby deserved higher scores' and claiming that certain sites were biased against certain games when the evidence doesn't support that.  It doesn't help when one of the sites you claimed was biased all of a sudden had been good for the past couple years in a later post.  Or when a 'low' score for MH or TvC goes from a bias against the Wii to a bias against the type of game.

The "difficulty" is what i like about Dragon Quest, they aren't just walkovers like final fantasy (exception being superbosses in FF) i like grinding when it is for a purpose, hell i played through Dragon Quest VIII multiple times to get the best ending and get the secret high level spell/ability(can't remember the name, but took several hours of grinding on slime hill).

i like when you just can't play through the game without having to train your characters, or for games that are somewhat easy to have superbosses of some sort(emerald/ ruby weapon FF7, Ozma FF9, Penance FF10)

Because the other kind of games tend to be there to show off cut scenes and graphics at the expense of the gameplay (in the sense that they want you to get to the next cut scene ASAP). Not that I'm personally against cut scenes and graphics of any kind, just the aformentioned expense of the fun parts.

Indeed.  The fun in RPGs, any RPGs in my opinion, is the journey, not the destination.  And Dragon Quest is the prime example of this.  Most of the time, I'm sad to get to the final boss, even after I've played 100 hours of it, because I'm wanting to keep exploring the world.  And this is kind of the opposite of your avg JRPG, which focuses on beating specific bosses or lots of dialogue.

2012 means we probably won't get any real news until TGS time (September) or worse Jumpfiesta (December). :(

I bet Level 5's still making it.

While I do think Level 5 is going to be making it, I wouldn't put other companies out of the question.  Remembe,r Yuji Horii said the game started development before DQIX even finished, which was pretty much done by the main group in Level 5 (including being directed by its founder, Akihiro Hino).

It would be pretty hard to have both games being made by the same team.  Though Yuji Horii could have just been saying the game was in early development at the same time as DQIX.  But I wouldn't put a company like ArtePiazza out of the question.  They finished DQVI a long time ago, eventhough it was delayed by the release of DQIX.

Though it could just as easily be a totally new group.

I think they probably meant planning work.  Level 5 is pretty much the money partner for Horii at this point, I don't see him "settling" for anyone else.

I do hope Genius Sonority and 8ing are doing a DQVII remake though.  God knows it needs it.