You're a mod, you should NOT be making that sort of statement. If you can't be respectful when posting, perhaps you should give up your mod-ship, or have a second account for that sort of talk.

Anyway, I like how you use meta scores, which are averages across a group of hardcore gamers who rated games, to show that pick-up-and-play games are low quality. I have both Wii Play and Mario Party 8 - both are very good games. And you can see the effect of "this is casual, therefore it's not as good" by looking at the distribution of ratings. Mario Party 8 averages 63% on Gamerankings... but GamePro gave it 9/10, and JIVEMagazine gave it 5/5.

On the flipside, IGN gave it 5.2/10... and here's the first line of their verdict: "Hudson and Nintendo really need to rethink the Mario Party formula, but will they?". And here's the last line: "In spite of our issues with the game, people who loved Mario Party 7 will probably enjoy Mario Party 8, too, but we've chosen not to reward Nintendo with an undeserved high score for a copy/paste sequel."

In the case of Michael Jackson: The Experience, a look at what reviewers actually said is rather revealing. For instance, in the Destructoid review (5/10), the main complaints are the difficulty (it's too hard), the lack of unlockables (everything is available from the start), and the fact that it uses the Wii Remote rather than doing full-body tracking a la Kinect. IGN's review (3.5/10) said "The biggest problem with Michael Jackson: The Experience is obvious when you consider the Wii's control setup. This platform wasn't designed to read a player's entire body, so a dance game that tasks players with moving their entire body presents an inherent disconnect."

So you tell me - are these reviews reasonable? Are they being evaluated from the perspective of a fan of these types of games? Or are they being evaluated according to "hardcore" sensibilities, and thus being given relatively low scores as a result?

Why can't I use metacritic?  That's exactly what you used in your own analysis.  Pretty convenient stance you're taking that all those high selling Wii games were actually just misunderstood while Haze is a pile of crap that Sony fans bought because they don't know what a good game is.

Every death in the souls games is the players fault, if you're dying then your not good enough. the repetition is also only there if you suck, I've never found either game very hard.

You're a mod, you should NOT be making that sort of statement. If you can't be respectful when posting, perhaps you should give up your mod-ship, or have a second account for that sort of talk.

Anyway, I like how you use meta scores, which are averages across a group of hardcore gamers who rated games, to show that pick-up-and-play games are low quality. I have both Wii Play and Mario Party 8 - both are very good games. And you can see the effect of "this is casual, therefore it's not as good" by looking at the distribution of ratings. Mario Party 8 averages 63% on Gamerankings... but GamePro gave it 9/10, and JIVEMagazine gave it 5/5.

On the flipside, IGN gave it 5.2/10... and here's the first line of their verdict: "Hudson and Nintendo really need to rethink the Mario Party formula, but will they?". And here's the last line: "In spite of our issues with the game, people who loved Mario Party 7 will probably enjoy Mario Party 8, too, but we've chosen not to reward Nintendo with an undeserved high score for a copy/paste sequel."

In the case of Michael Jackson: The Experience, a look at what reviewers actually said is rather revealing. For instance, in the Destructoid review (5/10), the main complaints are the difficulty (it's too hard), the lack of unlockables (everything is available from the start), and the fact that it uses the Wii Remote rather than doing full-body tracking a la Kinect. IGN's review (3.5/10) said "The biggest problem with Michael Jackson: The Experience is obvious when you consider the Wii's control setup. This platform wasn't designed to read a player's entire body, so a dance game that tasks players with moving their entire body presents an inherent disconnect."

So you tell me - are these reviews reasonable? Are they being evaluated from the perspective of a fan of these types of games? Or are they being evaluated according to "hardcore" sensibilities, and thus being given relatively low scores as a result?

CoD Ghosts and AC4 both lack DLC, which are major selling points for both games. And as I've pointed out with regards to Ghosts, third parties seem to think that the Wii or Wii U version should sell without any mention in any of their advertising, with features missing, with almost zero support post-release, and with the game not even confirmed to exist on Wii/WiiU until something like 4-5 months after confirmation of other versions.

As for PS4/XBO, I only brought up the fact that they point to lack of install base for Wii U, but didn't have any qualms about install base on PS4/XBO despite them having a zero install base at the time - like I said, hypocrisy. And when you consider that both ACIII and CoD:BO2 were inferior on Wii U compared with other versions despite being on a more powerful system, while the PS4 and XBO versions were clearly superior in their respective case, plus the fact that Wii U owners had better games to choose from, means that you shouldn't be surprised.

And I'm sorry, but you seem to have confused what I was talking about, regarding support. I'm not saying third parties didn't put a lot of games on the Wii. What I'm saying is that they didn't put a lot of quality games on the Wii. The only third parties that really tried to put quality games on the Wii were Sega, Ubisoft (Montpellier and Paris, mostly), LucasArts, and a few specific studios from other publishers (such as the team behind Tiger Woods PGA Tour). And these are the ones that sold well. The amount of actual shovelware pumped out by what should have been the best publishers, that then sold miniscule amounts on the Wii, is astounding - and yet, they kept at it, because those shovelware games cost so little to develop (you get what you pay for) that they were profitable when they sold under 50k. Meanwhile, Nintendo produced quality game after quality game, and sales of Nintendo games reflect that.

Every death in the souls games is the players fault, if you're dying then your not good enough. the repetition is also only there if you suck, I've never found either game very hard.