ok I honestly just started shaking my hand while I swung the ball and hit 9 pins. As I said this isn't my normal method of playing the game but it does show me that the game can only register a few simple motion based gestures. I did say there was some depth in Wii Sports when played the right way, but I can honestly see a lot more room for improvement. As I said I can see an argument in favor of Wii Sports and respect it, I may not agree with you that it deserves an 8.5 but I respect your opinion on the matter.

I was mainly citing things like Wii Play, Mario Party, Mario and Sonic, etc. Those games are riddled with flaws, inaccuracies and lack depth to a great degree. I don't think it's unfair for a reviewer to score those games poorly just as I don't think it's wrong to score Wii Sports in the 7-8 range for what it is.

heh I only give one reviewer any real credit and that's myself. I actually think most game critics are pointless as I've said plenty of times, I just don't see the 'unfair' treatment that people are claiming exists. Maybe once in a while it happens with casual and hardcore games, but I hardly feel like reviewers aren't doing their jobs because Mario Party 8 didn't recieve raving reviews.

I've done the training mode in Wii Sports, as I said it does have some depth and the bowling game is my favorite, I just see room for a lot more that's all. And I agree that it was fun.  

The indusrty has a bias towards the 360 right now. Wii games are getting good scores. It's the PS3 that's getting played.

 I can button mash in and Soul Calibur games and win matches as well. Occasionally against really good people because they can't quite figure out I am button mashin and try to look for an intelligent way to counter my attacks. The game does only register a limited amount of input and I was never disputing that. I was saying it registers far more than your post implied though. Based off what you said I honestly could not tell whether or not you knew how the spin mechanic worked. There is a lot of room for improvement as there is with every game, but it is certainly not on par with Excite Truck as far as actual game quality is concerned.

 And I restricted my arguement to Wii Sports for a very very good reason. While I have not played Mario and Sonic, I cannot get into Wii Play or Mario Party. Wii Play is a game that lacks depth in almost every way, and shows what Wii Sports would be like if it didn't have any depth. I honestly wouldn't have spent the $10 for the controller and wouldn't own the game if it wasn't a gift.

 @Pearljammer

 No, one review most certainly does not show that the claim is false. I can't imagine what would definitevly prove it one way or the other, but a list of games that was very very large one way or the other would be a good start. I can only relate my experiences anecdotally where I have seen reviewrs start reviews with "I just feel fight games have evolved beyond 2d." That is a clear cut example of a reviewer using what he likes as a basis rather than what the intended audience will like.

It's not an assumption, it's a firm belief based on how he responded. I repeated myself multiple times, and his responses remained oblique to the topic at hand. I hate hitting my head against a wall, so I left.

Nintendogs is a fantastic example for my case: its reviews were good but not great here. In comparison, Famitsu gave the game a 40/40 score in Japan. EGM in particular ridiculed this score on 1up yours many moons ago, as evidence of Famitsu's lax standards. It is now, as many know, the best selling game not on PC in the last decade (perhaps also including PC, as its difficult to tell without hard figures), and has almost singlehandedly given birth to a new genre and been critical to the DS's domination of the female demographic.

More important, the "casual" catch all -- which double objected to and I agree with -- is such a broad term that one can make any sort of claim about it. Rhythm games, for example, are clearly accepted by the mainstream gaming press; mini-game collections clearly are not, as not a single one has ever scored above an 83, with most much lower, despite extreme popularity and years of genre honing. I could also site the fact that many enthusiast press outlets have ridiculed the genre as a whole, but without immediate links at hand (most have been offhand comments on podcasts)

Again, I'll simply repeat what Dan Hsu, executive editor of EGM, had to say about Wii Play, because I think it's the most explicit example:

"Play is for people who don't really play games, and as someone who really does, that's a problem."

This explicitly states that he's reviewing games by his own standard, and not by the standards of the intended audience. Score comparisons shouldn't even have been necessary, although they are an easy and tangible way to reinforce my position -- here is the executive editor of the second largest game magazine explicitly stating that he's reviewing the game from his own perspective.

There are, of course, other quotes (looking through the Wii Sports reviews immediately gives several blurbs about how the game isn't deep enough and "hardcore" gamers won't like it), but the message is clear: these reviewers are reviewing titles based on personal perspective and preference.

You can't really button mash in Soul Calibur and do well. You can win against people that also don't know how to play. Same goes for any fighting game. What separates the good fighting games from the bad ones is that once you're playing an experienced player your button mashing tactics are rendered useless. I don't feel Wii Sports has that level of depth to it, as I can just swing my arm randomly each time and get a great score, beating out people that bowl as they do in leagues and what not.

I also don't agree that every game has room for improvement, or not much anyway. Those are the games that I feel deserve 10s, games like Smash Brothers, Resident Evil 4, Super Mario Brothers 3, Super Mario Galaxy etc. These are games that are not far from perfection, I don't think Wii Sports is on that level of quality in whatever genre you'd like to place it in, which was all I was really saying.

Gnizmo, with your comments about the other games I now see no point in arguing with you. We're basically debating over Wii Sports deserving a 7.5 or an 8.5 and to me the difference isn't all that big.  

haha Bod you hit your head on a wall everytime someone doesn't agree with what you're saying? That would explain why you don't make any sense.

I'm not going to get into the bigger conversation, just Wii Sports. Wii Sports is not shallow in the least. For the gent that said Mario Tennis is deeper, well yes it is. But Mario Tennis is simply tennis. If they packaged Mario Strikers, Mario Power Tennis, Mario Golf and Mario Baseball as a single title I can see the point. EA packages all of it's sim sports titles seperately. So does 2K Sports. Wii Sports is a compilation, and as such, liberties are allowed to be taken on each fifth of the package because you only need 20% of a real sports game in each sports section.

What Wii Sports does well:

-The Mii integration was genius. It's as deep as you want to make it, with hilarious results depending on your creations. How is that not deep?

-Having your own profiles. Your Mii becomes your profile to track your pro level in each sport and your fitness level.

-The minigames. Each title has three minigames, equaling 15. How does that not show depth?

-The fitness challenges that Fitness Age stats ala Brain Age 

What Wii Sports does not do well:

-Options! Options! Options!  If you want Wii Sports to be percieved as something other than a good technical demo, give your players the most basic of options. In Baseball, which in itself is a decieving word for Home Run Derby, why can't I change the amount of innings? In Boxing, why can't I change the amount of rounds? In Tennis, you can't even get the sense that it's your fault if you lose, since your player moves independent of you. Bowling is perfect, so I cannot hate on it and golf has minor control issues but nothing that distracts too much from the gameplay.

Reviewers got it all wrong though. This is a great game for a party atmosphere, which is what it was created for. Anything having to do with single player play lacking should be stricken from the reviews. Anything having to do with depth of gameplay should be stricken also, even most of my above comments. Why? Because this was targeted for your grandmother, and your uncle, and your girlfriend, to play with you. This was brought forth in the Nintendo press statements and should have been put into consideration. The technical aspects of this game are great, where they're REQUIRED to be. The reviewers decided to write the review for the fella reading the gaming mag, without enforcing that his mother and father and sister and aunt will love it, and he'll love it because they do, and that kinda gathering is always the best.

8.5/10-No lower, no higher 

You can beat experienced players in Soul Calibur by mashing buttons just like I passed Kingdom Hearts by pressing "X" repeatedly without using items or strategy or anything. That doesn't make them bad games. I feel Wii Sports is like that. It is shallow in a lot of ways. I mean you can't even play one on one with Tennis but I believe it would have been crazy for them to give us 5 full games for free with the Wii.

I think the main problems with people criticizing mini-game collections such as Mario Party is that they are playing them alone. Mario Party is boring when you play it along and the one-player mode really is torture when you play it. However, I agree that this game in particular has serious flaws. The board is just random.

The thing I can't really understand (maybe it's just me) is how can FPS shooters keep getting good scores. I mean all those games are nearly identical. It's always the same things. I can't see what's revolutionary in CoD4 or Halo 3 or Resistance or whatever...

Endless Ocean is a perfect example. Its highest score is 88 while its lowest score is 25. So is it very well put together, or a steaming pile of buggy crap? That's the message the scores should convey. Instead you have to look at it as one guy liked the game a lot and one guy hated it, which is an opinion, not a critique.