So all new music should be put to the standards of quality and technical merit of Opera and Classical music? All new movies should be reviewed under the standards of awards like the Oscars? If this was the case no rock, pop or country artist would see reviews above roughly 1%, and you would never see a comedy or action movie that would receive more than 1 star.

This isn't the case though, reviewers consider movies and music in the context of the genre they're released in; Britney Spears is an awful muscian but in the context of been a teen-pop icon she really isn't that bad (and the reviews demonstrate this); and movies like Knocked Up are awful but in the context of being a crude comedy it isn't that bad (and the reviews demonstrate this). The fact that you can not concede this point either demonstrates your ignorance or an amazing bias.

Videogame reviewers on the whole have not demonstrated this type of objectivity. No one is expecting a reviewer to go easy on Wii games (or any game) but they do want people to review Puzzle games (as an example) with the realization that there are certain elements that are important for it to be a good puzzle game and certain features people look for from a puzzle game; a puzzle game is not (necessarily) a shallow, easy or dumb game but it doesn't need a strong storyline, an online leaderboard, or multiple multiplayer modes in order to be a good game.

what are you talkin about 360s already dropped to second its been second world wide since dec 07 and nothing has caught it up ,,

there was a article at gamespot , stating wii took 1st place world wide , its got 20 mill plus

360 has 17 mill plus,, that is shipped not sold, wiis already sold its said numbers, because they are sold out

360s are still stocked at many retailers

as is ps3s

nintendo earned their spot ,, rightfully they gave us what we hoped for plus what they tossed in to the mix

online -what many complained that gamecube didnt have

more mature titles-since launch red steel zelda upted to a t rating , cod3 moh 2 of them driver manhunt 2 a first time rockstar gave wii a m rated title,

they got bully out the godfather plus their titles ssbb galaxy super paper mario mario party8 metroid prime 3 it wont be long before more come ts4 is in development for wii

theres a far cry finally

a wwe game a quality one at least for what it is ,

they gave us virtual console we didnt even ask for that or none expected backward capabilities let alone web browsers etc ,,

they just tosed in everything the only complaint i heard from fan boys is graphics well like i said , graphics dont make a game , they in fact are the main cause for reviews to go a 5,5 or below

they can help yes but with the glitches many of the games expeirence with graphical issues , that is a mark down on the review side of things

and jimmy, less top rated games? um your wrong,, re4 metroid 3 re uc zelda and more, and i can say the same thing about ps2,, mario galaxy is game of the year and top rated, ssbb is 9,5 at ign , sold alot on release , mario kart is gonna do the same,

oh and re4 sold a million over a million even for a game that has been on 2 previous gen consoles, thats good

and your saying ps2 wasnt the best of last gen,,

your wrong on that one to

theres more racing platforming driving and fpses on wii then party games, wiis got nearly 800 games released and or in development , so your saying all 800 are mini game based i dont think so

less then half not even a quarter of wiis library consist of mini games and by the way in all territories aside from japn wii sports shouldnt count its a free game

you shouldnt be here jimmy if your not happy with wiis sales numbers to bad,, or with what wii offers again TOO BAD one person aint gonna stop wii from selling especally a graphics monster or how do you say it halo fan boy ,,

and no ps3 has less top games then wii or 360 combine lol ,, im not even gonna go on because you dont know nothing , ps3 doesnt even have aaa titles yet

mario party may be stale but you know what halo is even more staler,,

as is many fps that have been released over the yrs

only a few of them have been good

goldeneye

perfect dark

duke nukem 3d

doom

timesplitters 1-3 soon 4 if it lives to expectations that is

hexen

thats itall other ones are stale as they come or just to short and easy with no replay value in em

the racing genre has more better games as does platforming and ,party (ssb mariokart wii sports wii play etc) you might not be the type who enjoys 4 player split screen play you may be the boringest person i just dont care goldeneye marioparty etc beat any halo made and any so called hard core title made, funny how this hardcore term is being used now,, its a word that describes violence so if you think a game has to be violent to be good your 10 x more wronger then the person you replaied or has replied to you me included

120 million ps2s tells a long story

20 million wiis now tell that same story

graphics do not make a game nor does the amount of violence,

the gameplay is what makes a game and the replay value, split screen etc and to tell you somthing wii isnt like your 360 abandoning what made fps good ,, splitscreen they kept it ,, and added multiplayer, online

mariokart is a good example

as is ssbb

only 2 360 games that are worth buying kept that important aspect,perfect dark zero and halo 3 as crappy as it sounds

not 2 players 4 players getting it got it good!

stop complaining

wii has more top games then ps3 and 360 more games over all as well

so dont go there and by the way reviews dont mean nothing,

i know a practically good game that has gotten such a low score you wouldnt belive it,

timesplitters future perfect on the gamecube

7.4 ya tell me i aint seeing things

a 7.4 for a 8, 7 game on ps2 and xbox

what the heck thats gamespot for you

oh same for wwe 2008

5,5 on ps2 6,0 on other 2 systems , gamespot trying to pull people away from buying a other wise ok game

but they rated halo 3 based on hype

nothing more i played it and trust me it doesnt look to much different or play different from halo 1 halo 1 was the best of the 3

even with that imitation map editior halo 3 doesnt stand a chance against the original halo on xbox or pc definately

end of descussion you dont like wii , thats not our fault you take gamespots or some sites review and think they tell the truth 100 percent of the time

not mine

i play a game based on the information and screens videos etc not on some ones biased reviews further more i play franchises im familiar with, not games like lair , whic that was so over hype it got a 4.0

Well if you truely believe that you can't compare wii's graphics, sound, game options, game length, online features, a.i., gameplay, basically anything that makes a game to that of the x360 and the ps3 then you sure as hell can't compare the sales of the wii to the x360 and ps3 as you claim they are two very different things with two very different sets of standards. So obviously any thread that now comes up in some way comparing the wii's sales to that of the x360 and ps3 you're going to jump in and tell everybody they can't do that because the wii is of a different standard.....because if you didn't then that would make you a hypocrite, and you're not a hypocrite are you?

Your argument makes absolutely no sense given my post ...

Review scores have never (EVER) been accurate across platforms being that a game which has 'Great Graphics' for the Nintendo DS is quite a bit different than a game that has 'Great Graphics' on the PS3; only a fool would argue that if a game was directly ported from the Nintendo DS to the PS3 that it should maintain the same graphics score. Reviewers have (historically) always considered the platform of release when reviewing games, and even PS2 games were reviewed based on the graphical/sound standards of the PS2 and not the graphical/sound standards of the XBox.

You question you always seem to be dodging is "If in every other critical medium the reviewers take into consideration the genre a product is released in when reviewing it, why should videogame reviewers hold all games to the standard which is important in a small selection of generes?" ... No one is saying that you should automatically give any game a higher score, but if you're reviewing a game and talking about how well crafted and enjoyable it is why shouldn't it get an appropriately high score if it contains all the elements people expect from the genre?

What you wrote makes no sense, it's a simple fact you can't hold the wii to different a different lower standard than the x360 and ps3 in terms of games and at the same time compare it's sales. Either you compare everything or compare nothing at all. If a game is short, shallow, has limited options, no online, poor a.i., bad graphics, bad sound with hit and miss controls then it's a bad game. Just because their is a casual crowd of people with poor taste in games who like short, shallow and easy, who don't care that it has limited options, no online, poor a.i., bad graphics, bad sound and hit and miss controls doesn't change the fact that it is still bad game. A poor game which is aimed at casual people with poor taste doesn't suddenly turn into a good one just because it met it's goal of being a bad game.

What you wrote makes no sense, it's a simple fact you can't hold the wii to different a different lower standard than the x360 and ps3 in terms of games and at the same time compare it's sales. Either you compare everything or compare nothing at all. If a game is short, shallow, has limited options, no online, poor a.i., bad graphics, bad sound with hit and miss controls then it's a bad game. Just because their is a casual crowd of people with poor taste in games who like short, shallow and easy, who don't care that it has limited options, no online, poor a.i., bad graphics, bad sound and hit and miss controls doesn't change the fact that it is still bad game. A poor game which is aimed at casual people with poor taste doesn't suddenly turn into a good one just because it met it's goal of being a bad game.

What you wrote makes no sense, it's a simple fact you can't hold the wii to different a different lower standard than the x360 and ps3 in terms of games and at the same time compare it's sales. Either you compare everything or compare nothing at all. If a game is short, shallow, has limited options, no online, poor a.i., bad graphics, bad sound with hit and miss controls then it's a bad game. Just because their is a casual crowd of people with poor taste in games who like short, shallow and easy, who don't care that it has limited options, no online, poor a.i., bad graphics, bad sound and hit and miss controls doesn't change the fact that it is still bad game. A poor game which is aimed at casual people with poor taste doesn't suddenly turn into a good one just because it met it's goal of being a bad game.