Wow, insulting much?

It doesn't matter if they're stupid reasons if that's how the general populous feels.  They're not going to go, "I don't think Mario Kart or Smash should win GOTY, but it's because of stupid reasons, so I'll vote for them anyway!"

The last update for that thread has Nintendo with 16 GOTY wins.  That's just a fraction away from zero.

A shame that the gaming media is so biased against them.

Yes, but the real question is: why didn't they both get all the GOTY awards on every single site?

There's only one logical explanation: It's a CONSPIRACY!!!

I never mentioned reviews, and i think you are mistaking me for a ''nintendo fan'' -if you are not then i apologize because i said it first- but my point is, for example in the recent game awards/previous VGA's (just one GOTY award out of all of em), nobody can get in my head that the juries just vote for their favorite game and that's it - there HAS to be some extra hand in there because these events/awards in general (by magazines, etc) are used as advertisement and that is potentially a lot of money so of course companies wouldn't want to pass on that - then a game is picked because it was ''widely popular'' (widely advertised) and so on... of course for those same reasons most people agree with the pick and case closed - Nintendo doesn't have either the will or maybe the potential market to want to ''invest'' on these things so they'll just wont win - and yes there are counted exceptions but THAT'S what makes it obvious they are part of the scheme; nobody wants to see themselves as the ones who gave goty to a nintendo game

Actually, Nintendo is winning some GOTY awards. And don't forget that Zelda gameplay saved TGA 2 weeks ago.
Some kind of trend I'm liking this gen (maybe the only good thing) is that reviews are now focusing on gameplay and not only in graphics. Reviewers are not easily impressed as last gen and we are getting interesting scores.

Of course some are still stubborn to believe that VG Industry needs mature realistic games only to be called "art" and recognized, but it seems people is taking to note that the real way is to offer new experiences and not failed movies.

How can it be wrong? I simply felt like playing a movie the entire time, that's how I experienced the game. I played 4 hours and watched around 6 hours of my friend playing. 

I thought it was pretty obvious that the game was trying to be a movie. I never said the game only consists of cutscenes. I never said I didn't enjoy it, I enjoyed playing AND watching it equally. I don't like playing GoW 3 because I hate hack & slash, but I like watching it because it's god damn epic! 

You might have a different vision than I have when I call something an interactive movie. If a game has too many cutscenes I just call it crap (like Metroid: Other M). 

I felt the same enjoyment out of watching my friend play than playing the game myself. That's why I call it an interactive movie. Watching someone play Zelda is extremely boring, playing it on the other hand is very fun. 

For me Sony first party games are famous for its movie inspired games. They do it better than everyone else. It's a compliment, not an insult. I do however prefer games where the story takes a backseat (like the Prime trilogy). That's called a personal preference. 

Watch the comments on Digital Foundry's framerate test of Captain Toad. Your hope in the gaming community (or at least the XBOX/PS community) will be lost. 

What did they say?

DF praised it, I'm talking about the youtube comments. They were horrible. Best thing they could come up with was calling it a mobile game with ugly graphics and blahblahblah.