cause I do!

By next year, I WILL HAVE BEATEN SORIKU IN PROFILE VIEWS!!!!!!!

massive amounts of cash in games that always come with high sales of a console, as well as that reviewers still do not understand the movement that Wii has started and what determines a good "Casual" game design.

 i already have the MOST PROFILE VIEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The easiest way to explain the distinction is that lots of "date movies" or "action movies" get good scores. Spiderman 1 and 2 (But not 3). Lord of the Rings 1,2,3. Gladiator not only got good reviews, but won many Oscars. Bourne Identity, Supremacy and Ultimatum. The best reviewed movie last year (according to metacrtic) was Ratatouille. There are lots non artsy-fartsy films that are reviewed well. 

If movie critics do not like Rambo or Shoot Em Up or whatever, it isn't because they have a seething hatred for hoi polloi and all their sophmoric tastes, but rather that they believe this particular action movie isn't as good as others. That's an entirely different thing than what we're seeing in video games, where mini-game collections and casual titles are constantly derided in general. The entire genres and their audience is being smeared. The games, even the best of them such as Wii Sports, are getting mediocre-at-best reviews.

Please, please recognize that difference. It's huge and very important and explains why video game journalism is being criticized here. They are not just saying: "These games are not as good as other games," they are saying "this genre and all the people who like it aren't as good." That is the problem.

Oh trust me I can name more than one movie that fits what I said. I'm sure you can as well. But here is one sub-genre that fits the role. Video-game based movies. Most reviewers never even play the games the movies are based on yet they bash them to hell with a review. I think the game industry does for the most part, what you claim most movie critics do. I don't think there are many genres ignored by game reviewers either. All genres have some very high rated games from RPGs to party games to shooting games to sports games.

In short, game criticism needs to stop asking "what do I personally like?" and start asking "will the intended audience for this game like it?"

When Game Informer did that with Paper Mario 2 everyone bashed them to hell and back for it. If you read most reviews they will state what kind of person will like the game, but most people just look at the score and call it a day. Reading the reviews are much more informative, reading most Wii Sports reviews will tell you exactly what to expect, who the game is for, and if you'll have fun with it. It does a lot more than a 7.8 or whatever.

Regardless, that still wasn't my point, I was just saying reviews are starting to matter less and less as the market expands. Almost everything can gain a huge following, that doesn't mean reviewers should always cater to that following or else everything would be getting high scores. So please, drop the 'ignorance on critical theory' stuff because that was never even what I was getting at.

Edit-hmm I shouldn't have posted 3 times in a row.

No. No. That is the problem here. Again, I apologize for insulting you, Double, because this is a fairly subtle distinction, but that's the whole point of professional criticism.

Professional critics are not supposed to give their own opinions. They are supposed to ground their reviews in objectivity and fact, on rigorous critical standards that can be applied to their specific medium. Professional reviews are intended to be as little opinion-based as possible.

Read my post above, double. Without going into critical theory in detail (it really is something you should read up on for such discussions), the most tangible distinction to be made here is that movie critics don't descriminate based on genre or audience, while video game journalists do. The best action movies get the same reviews as the best kids movies get the same reviews as the best artsy-fartsy ones. In gaming, "casual" titles are uniformly lower in review score, and moreover are constantly derided by critics as "non games." Some have even gone so far as to say that Wii Fit is hurting gaming in some fashion. 

There are no casually-oriented titles that have reviewed well. None. Wii Sports, Wii Play, Mario Party, Raving Rabbids,  Here is the review that Dan Hsu, director of EGM, gave for Wii Play:

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

That is the best example I can find of how gaming criticism is fundamentally flawed, and does not follow critical theory. He is explicitly admitting here that he is judging a game intended for a different audience by what he personally prefers. Again, that simply isn't how professional criticism is applied.