I read an article last week about the flock mentality of game reviewers when it comes to reviewing high-profile games. Really interesting (in swedish, sorry).

Check out the users' votes for those games, quite a bit different than the review scores.

No not really, and that's the typical fanboy response i would expect to showing the stats for quality of games, you just try and cherry pic something to make your favourite system look good...sigh. This thread is about the wii hitting 20 million sellers. Another post commented on the alot of the wii's million sellers are accutally pretty bad or average games, which is the truth, instead of people accepting this they jumped on him and had ago at him. I've come along and backed up his claims with some facts.

An "unbiased opinion" is a contradiction in terms.

As an ex-reviewer I've had experience with pressure from advertisers about not "dissing" their biggest games.

And on "reviewers give their unbiased opinions"...if you really do believe that, I have some nice land on Saturn to sell.

Sonic and the secret rings was a flawed game but wasn't that bad (compared to every other Sonic game since the Dreamcast) ...

In my opinion a lot of its flaws (replaying levels too many times, half of game time being spent in menu navigation, questionable controlls at times, awful story, etc.) can be explained by it being a rushed game with a tiny budget and an inexperienced development team; if they throw some additional resources at it and focus on eliminating many of these flaws they will produce the first truely good Sonic game in a long time.

Wow. You must not know me very well to call me a fanboy. In fact, I don't think I've ever been called a fanboy before. I'm just stating the relevant part of your analysis: Wii sells more games then PS3. That means it sells more bad games, as well as more good games.

In general professional reviewers give far more unbiased reviews then people who vote for games on a forum, if you think review scores are equal to the opinion of anybody who can give a game 1 out of 10 because they are a fanboy then i have some nice land on mars to sell.

No the relevent part is the percentage of games the wii sells are alot lower in quality compared to what the x360 and ps3 sell, that's the point. To proove the point even further the ps2 has more million sellers than anybody but the amount of quality games it has percentagewise is higher than the wii.

I find this to be an interesting argument because of how flawed it is ...

Most people who are either unbiased or (atleast) being fair agree that a large portion of the Wii's library is made up of games where their review score does not represent the quality or enjoyment of the game; you could argue that these games are under-reviewed or (at least) current reviewing methodologies are not able to adequately review these games. Basically, games like Mario Party, Mario and Sonic at the Olympics, Carnival Games, and several other Wii games are well crafted enjoyable experiences that are highly desireable to a segment of the gaming population which is not represented by reviewers.

Now, most people would agree that the high sales of these games demonstrates that the review system is lacking or flawed ... Using these review scores to then argue that people are buying "Worse" games seems odd and (somewhat) dishonest given this context.

To put it another way ... Most games that receive a 60% to 75% on the PS3, XBox 360 or most systems that have been released tend to have very serious flaws that make it (remarkably) difficult to enjoy these games; in contrast many Million selling Wii games that have received a 60% to 75% score have been very enjoyable although they have a limited appeal to the small demographic of people who get the luxury of reviewing games. Few people would argue that these Wii games are (in fact) bad so it is incorrect to use these Wii games as an example of the Wii promoting the sale of "bad" games.