It's also the question of what's best for the money, which of course is relative.

For example, for a causal gamer, wii play is good for the money. It's $10 for 12 shallow minis. For me, I would just rather skip a game that I know wouldn't hold my interest that long. So, when I buy wiimotes, I don't get the wii play pack ins.

However, too much can be a bad thing. Mass Effect is a terrible deal for a casual gamer. Sure, it's a ton of content but what would they do with all of it? A non or casual gamer might give mass effect like a 2/10 and say, well it looks nice, but where do I begin?

The fact of the matter is, most (notice I'm saying most all you casual gamers who visit this site) casual and non gamers don't read internet sites and gaming mags so reviews mean nothing to them anyway. Reviewers are everyday and hardcore gamers like most everyone who reads their stuff, so they review for them. They want to get their moneys worth and try to make an informed review so that we may do the same.

uh ok fine let me post some games that people know about

Legend of Zelda OoT-98/100

Super Mario Galaxy-97/100

Soul Calibur-96/100

Metroid Prime-96/100

Super Mario 64-95/100

Resident Evil 4-95/100

Tekken 3-94/100

People have heard of those I'm sure. This is why I don't like the term 'casual game' because things like Mario, Smash Brothers, Halo and Final Fantasy all have a huge casual fanbase yet they're not in the same genre. 

A lot of people heard about ninja gaiden too, it must be casual.

Again, just so every one is clear and no fights break out.

Casual = generally accessible

 You know after I posted that I thought "What about the boxing game?" and realized what was coming. I'll concede that the boxing one needs a lot of work. It isn't attrocious, but it is not up to par with the rest of the games. It is a mid 70s level mini game so I concede that one point.

 the other games are spot on though. Tennis was amazingly well done. The way I started to domnate all my friends is by starting to place my shots based on how physics would have it play out. It works everytime. It is a very simplified tennis game, but considering it is little more than a display of the physics work the Wii can do I would say it is amazingly well put together. I would put the same label on Wii Bowling. Twisting your wrist the wrong way or at a bad time will kill your throw. If you sit down and think how the ball should hit the pins and then go for that it will work everytime though. It is extremely consistent and relatively realistic.

 The game controls are designed to be simple, and are complex enough to give an experienced person the definitve edge. They work everytime and exactly how you expect them to. The gameplay is fun and engaging and is a riot with 4 people. It is not a 10, and I will never argue that it is. It is a solid 85 though, and a serious system seller. It is way under-rated because no one knew what to do with the game when it came out.

Yeah I don't know. I see where both sides are coming from, except I don't believe that SSB:M is a party game. It's a multiplayer game, but that doesn't make it a party game...

On one side games that are fun should be given credit for being fun, and a game doesn't need depth and unlockables and great graphics to be good. Thus, WiiSports should be rated higher. I'd give it at least an 8. And not because it does what it's suppose to do well, but because it's a fun game that anyone can play. And I find the controls pretty good. I know my brother beats me to the ground in tennis because he's learned how to hit the ball perfectly so that it goes to where my guys can't hit it. And he's played it enough to know how to those little tricks. That's depth enough. But since the game doesn't have a story line makes it seem not worthy of a decent score.

Edouble24, you asked someone to come in here and say why some of these party games should be given better scores without expressing opinion, and I cannot do that. But at the same time, these reviewers give some of these games (Mario and Sonic is a good example) really bad scores, yet loads of people buy them. And I can't see how people would buy something if it's bad. I would expect party games to be a type of game that if it's fun, nobody would buy it, simply because the casuals that are buying it would be reserved to just buying a game. Word of mouth is the key here, which is why the Wii has done so well, and probably why games like Mario and Sonic do so well. To these people, Gears of War would get a 5, and Mario and Sonic would get 10. That's opinion. And that's human nature. But to say that these games don't deserve credit is uncalled for.

Basically the difference between what you, Edouble24, was saying and what Bod was saying is that, while movie critics look at things such as, acting, good script, chemistry between actors/actresses, etc, basically anything that any movie can have, in a movie to determine if it's good, game critics usually look at the campaign mode, which includes things such as replayability, controls, co-op, the actual storyline, and to an extend graphics. But since party games usually don't have storys, and are just to pick up and play, they find it hard to say whether the game is any good. Also, party games are already going to get a lower story, simply because the lack of a real "campaign" mode is absent, and that is usually one of the greatest feature of any game, and since not all games have multiplayer, campaign mode is the only thing that can check. Without this campaign mode, they feel that the game lacks "depth" and other such things. With this already lower score because of a lack of a storyline mode, if they find anything else wrong, such as bad controls, the game just fails in their eyes. But the way it should be looked at is how fun is the game? Because that's what party games are for. Are they fun? Then you should start asking how the controls work and such. Should WiiSports get a 10? No. It's a good game, and it does have it's flaws. Does it deserve the 76% it has on GameRankings? I don't think so. The average vote gives it a 8.5. I think that's closer to what it should be.

Finally, I think if you looked at the average score of games, like Mario and Sonic, by people who have bought the game, I think you'll find that the peoples score will be higher, if not greatly higher. Take Mario and Sonic (again) for example. IGN gave it a 7.9 "Good". The average press score according to IGN was 6.2, and the IGN AU rating was 5.2. The average reader score? 8.4. 2 whole points above the average press score. Why is that?

yeah, but then play wii tennis, then put in something like mario tennis and see how it has things to unlock, depth in gameplay, etc.

I can make a game that has you doing nothing but hold up, I can make it so that the only graphics are a green backround and a black arrow on the screen, and I can make it so it has NO screen tearing, no framerate problems, no blurry textures, nothing. The logic that it has no flaws thus it should score perfectly isn't a good way to think, because it would mean that people can take a minimal approach and that's it.

Humans by nature want more rather then less, even if it means flaws come with the depth. Mario galaxy has camera issues in some spots, if you look close at the textures they can get blurry, yet people prefer this over something that is 'perfect' but tries to do very little.

People strive for perfection with depth. You can date a sheet of white paper and say, it looks perfect and does no wrong to me, or you can date a cute girl who might argue once in awhile, do you prefer the paper?

Probably.

 The graphical style of Wii sports is spot on. It uses Miis and created a world where Miis look like they belong. Put a Mii in Mario Galaxy and it looks awkward and dumb. Not one person has ever made the complaint that the Miis look stupid when playing Wii Sports though despite the fact that Miis do, infact, look retarded.

As to your ludicruous question I would say that depends. What is your target audience for the game? What gaming experience are you trying to create with your game? Are you looking to tap into the massive market of people who want to sit and stare at their screen for a while? Do ya see the kinds of actual questions you have to ask when trying to objectively review a game?

 You can't directly compare the gameplay between Halo and Final Fantasy in any way. Doing so would cause one of them to get creamed in reviews for shitty game play. So what does determine good gameplay? It would depend entirely on your audience. Wii Sports, and most mini-game compilations, are targeted at party atmospheres. Not the lan party scene where a bunch of gamers hook up their rigs and get down (which is incredibly fun) but when a bunch of people just happen to be over. It was designed so anyone could pick-up and play it reasonably well and have a lot of fun with it. Wii Sports accomplished that easily. The game play is only shallow if you are determined to spend 3,000 hours trying to master it so no one can possibly beat you. There is plenty enough depth to the game to keep you playing and improving for quite a while.

 Your finally comparison is exactly what is wrong with game reviews. You can't put those two games side by side and say which is honestly better. The games are as different as night and day. They are apples and oranges. You say Gears of War is better, but I would rather play Chicken Shoot non-stop for 12 hours than play 5 minutes of Gears of War. I simply cannot stand first or third person shooters with a very very few rare exceptions. Even a game as masterfully well made as Resident Evil 4 cannot make me enjoy them. Game reviewers should be taking that into consideration and they just aren't currently. You have to consider intended audience, and how well it compares to other games in its genre, but not the genre itself.

I really can't agree that the controls work exactly as they should all the time. You've never had your Mii swing the tennis racket the wrong way? The Wii just picked up me swinging the controller but didn't register the direction properly, that has happened quite often.

I just turned on Wii bowling right now, I swung my arm to the right, to the left, under my leg, 20 feet away from the TV and even backwards (with my back facing the TV) and it went right down the middle each time. Seriously go try it, have your back facing the sensor bar and swing, move and arm in any direction while swinging and the ball most likely will hit some pins. Now this isn't how people should play the game but it proves that it's got quite a ways to go before it can be called accurate.

Wii Sports succeeds in giving us a preview of what is to come on the Wii, we'll get upgraded versions with 1:1 controls that are much more precise in the future. I think when that time comes then Wii Sports 2(or whatever the game will be called) will be scoring 8+ all over. I honestly see a lot of room for improvement which is why I just can't agree that Wii Sports deserves a really high score.

This is why I made the movie comparison, just because a lot of people like something doesn't mean it should score well. Lots of games sell well that are heavily flawed. Why is Mario and Sonic selling? Maybe because Mario and Sonic are on the cover. If someone is writing an opinionated review and gives Mario and Sonic a 10, fine, but the game has some bluntly obvious flaws that most reviewers simply can't ignore.

You can get good sales from advertising a poor product, just because people bought into the hype doesn't make it good.

And Smash Brothers was always intended to be a party game, why wouldn't it be?