@GreyAcumen
Just to clarify, I did read the entire post.
I am just sharing my thoughts the same way you have.
My Opinion.... Your Opinion.
Please don't warn or ban me for sharing such an opinion since this is what these forums are for.

You assume there is a phenomena happening with gaming reviews. If you focus clearly on what you are arguing here... It makes no sense.
I call Bullshit.
Game reviewers judge games on a variety of different criteria. This criteria is aware of the wii and recognizes it. They know how to judge wii games and are capable of doing so. But just because of the fact that re-vamped gamecube games are being released with a control scheme that involves waiving your arms around in the air on a system that is unaware of how great it could be if it were to apply itself in the first place, does not justify you questioning the foundation of the entire game reviewing industry. (react to the facts in that statement for a moment)
Yet again just my opinion here.

Ask yourself this question: Wouldn't it be great if the wii itself was a better system... a better piece of hardware?

if asked that question for any system, I would say YES, absolutely.

Now lets just take a moment to breathe and relax here..

IMO
The "Wii" is great if you have never played a video game in your life (except for a handful of games) but so is the PS2. The fact of the matter is that the "Wii" exists in a time where the equivalent of "the Wii 2" already exists. (in the PS3/360)
Don't get me wrong, without considering the alternatives, the wii is a great system. It may have some great games, some of the best N franchises but that does not make the wii good now in 2008.

You argue why doesn't the industry have a better way to evaluate the advancements and progressions that the wii is making.

I argue that those same advancements and progressions are actually steps backwards in the video game industry. Where Brilliant marketing and low comparative prices have won the war. Quality is not ever considered by a large portion of consumers, and that has been proven. The industry still exists in an environment where better hardware makes a strong difference in game design, quality, and possibilities.

and IMO the wii mocks this fact, and asks the world of video games to become accustomed to its own style of success. Which is What? A controller? Something that could be released without a problem by the competition?

You ask why can't wii games be judged differently by reviewers

I ask why should wii games even be considered games on the same elementary level as the competition at all.

If you think about it we are asking the same question, You just haven't realized it yet.

Boo-Yah!

@ultraslick, why is the Wii selling more software than any other system? Is it because the casuals are poor sad souls who don't any better? Are the games that sell well on the Wii the result of uneducated nubs infiltrating your hobby and not knowing what REAL games to buy? Are the games that sell well on (insert HD console of choice) the result of radical dudes knowing what the most awesome badical shit is? Why are the majority of game reviewers giving bad reviews to the best selling games of the generation? Are we to believe that the best selling games are now somehow BAD and the industry is being changed for the worse because we don't know what good games are anymore?

EDIT: I'd also like to request a mod to remove his ending Boo-Yah!, which was hardly necessary after such a weak argument.

They are all for GTA 4 under negative, again this is just for the word perfect.

Since everybody else is doing a just for the record.

Just for the record I did read it all.

 IMO Its cheaper/ userbase demographic is big/wii owners then buy games with same judgement.

 I assume you stated all of that in sarcasm.

But in response to the rest of your post....   EXACTLY. 

I mean this without sarcasm, I have no hostility here. I am just sharing my Opinion. Your post made me laugh, not at you or in a mean way at all, but because I genuinely thought you were funny.

the word badical, and the last sentance.   Seriously LOL,  

EDIT: I'd also like to request a mod to remove his ending Boo-Yah!, which was hardly necessary after such a weak argument.

Thats funny. 

I am seriously cracking up at 3 in the morning in my house right now.
You are an alright guy Ghost.. seriously.

I feel like if we had posted under different circumstances, we could be on the same page on certain issues. Feel free to use the "Boo-Yah" for a post of your own if you would like. Its on the house. 

*2 - I'm assuming these facts of yours are somewhere in this line? "re-vamped gamecube games are being released with a control scheme that involves waiving your arms around in the air on a system that is unaware of how great it could be if it were to apply itself in the first place" cause that whole thing is pretty much opinion, yet you state it as fact. I'm getting conflicting signals here.

*3 - Okay, but if we're going to answer that question with a yes, we should also be prepared to answer another question: "Are you willing to pay $200 more for that better hardware?" My answer to that is "no"

*4 - Oh god, I dunno, I might need a paper bag... *wheezes and gasps* Okay, I think I'm good.

*5 - Twilight Princess, Metroid Prime 3, No More Heroes all have to deny you here. These are some of the best games I have EVER played, and 90% of that is because of how well the control setup works. I cannot get that from teh PS3, and I cannot get that from the 360. I enjoy Wii because it offers me an experience that I have never had before despite more than 15 years of gaming. But yeah, okay, fine, IYO

*6 - Hrmm... when I want to swing a sword, I can actually swing the Wiimote. If I want to swing a bat, I swing the wiimote, if I want to aim a gun, I aim the wiimote, if I want to steer a car, I turn the wiimote... these are steps backward? It may just be waggle to you right now, but this is a step towards something brilliant, a brilliance that cannot be obtained without first taking that step.

*7 - I'm not really talking about just Wii games, I'm talking about any game that has a distinct difference in what it's goal is from a traditional game and the focus of the advancements it has made for the type of game it is. This just primarily happens to be games on the Wii.

*8 - of course, you were also wrong about what I was asking, so that may have thrown a wrench in your theory that our questions are the same.

*9 - uh, go you?

I thought you were just being a dick, ultraslick. But if you're totally being honest... word up. I think you're nuts. But damn. I totally didn't expect an "EXACTLY." That's the one thing I can't argue.

I do believe that every once in a while a new hardcore game will attract even more "casuals" and a new casual game will attract even more "hardcores" and they'll keep feeding off each other, increasing sales of both types of games. There are a lot of great hybrid games for every console. Any game that breaks 10 million is casual as hell, because there aren't even 10 million hardcore gamers on the planet. Halo, GTA, Madden, Gran Turismo, all casual games.

I just don't think any console takes a step backwards. I think the PS3 and 360 took small steps forward and Wii stepped diagonally in some crazy new direction that's shaking up the industry.

@ Grey Acumen:

I don't necessarily disagree with your last post. I always view posts like your OP or my responding post in your case and want to respond the way you just did.

To have a numbered list of responses for everything I mean, I just cant avoid typing stream of consciousness.

As I said, I don't disagree with much of what you said.
But I do Agree strongly with:

"*6 - Hrmm... when I want to swing a sword, I can actually swing the Wiimote. If I want to swing a bat, I swing the wiimote, if I want to aim a gun, I aim the wiimote, if I want to steer a car, I turn the wiimote... these are steps backward? It may just be waggle to you right now, but this is a step towards something brilliant, a brilliance that cannot be obtained without first taking that step."

I completely agree. I guess I was just referring to its direct impact (the games) on the industry instead of its future potential.

you said: #7... "the focus of the advancements it has made for the type of game" I agree there should be some sort of secondary scoring merit for this category.

But when it all comes down to it, those advancements, (for the type of game that they are) as they are important to the industry and its possible future, don't really factor into the quality of the game itself.. do they?
- I guess They do and they don't

You said: *9 - uh, go you?
- Whooo! Go me!

Either way good thread, excellently formed posts, but it still is asking for it because of its overarching implification that GTA IV should not be as good as professional reviewers say it is/ but SMG should be.

I know now that is not what you are trying to get across.

Off to play GTA, but Just FYI, usually pick one thread a night to really talk in, and this was it.

Thread of the Night! For sure

Sorry to edit out your post, but it is ludicrously long and I don't want to fill a page with the same things over and over.

Your idea that only hardware defines how good a console is seems limited to me. Honestly I was completely satisfied with N64/PS1 era graphics. Since then, and even during that time I have been judging consoles based on games and controllers. I would probably be fine with SNES/Gensis level graphics with the right games and controller set-up. Games are not so limited now a days by hardware as they are by vision. The industry is charging down the path of more is better and that is causing some problems.

The big inspiration for this off-shoot is your claim that we are seeing revamped Gamecube games on the Wii. I would argue we are seeing the first real change in the direction of games since the jump to 3D. The game types that could be done well changed drastically with the jump from SNES to PS1. Some game types simply cannot work without some form of 3D. The absolute explosion in the popularity of GTA to the point where GTA3 became its own series of games is strong evidence of that. The FPS genre would be crippled without 3D possibilities. Increasing raw power past that though just makes the games more refined and robust. In other words, we are seeing the same games revamped and revised.

None of that is bad of course. Increasing raw power and refinement can easily make the games better. Look at how much better Armored Core is on the PS2 compared to the PS1. GTA3 never even came about until the PS2 probably due to not being able to work with the low hardware. The waters are slightly muddied since dual analog became standard in this generation and that caused a control scheme change as well. Still a lot of what we saw was a recharged version of old game genres that we had in the previous generation.

This generation has more of the same again. Two of the next generation consoles have controller that are essentially clones of their previous iterations. The PS3 has "lolwaggle" like the Wii, but its shape and form confine that ability greatly. The Wii has proven it can create a new type of game experience though. The "lolwaggle" isn't all of it, but it contributes greatly. With it you can create novel ways to perform mundane tasks and have fun. This essentially helps it flesh out the genre Wario Ware made popular. The true beauty is its ability to point directly at objects on screen. This opens up a lot of possibilities that were previously not really workable. Point and click adventure games, FPS, and RTS are a few genres that are infinitely improved by the ability to quickly move about the screen. This simply cannot be done on the other consoles due to the standard controller not supporting those features.

This is why I laugh at your notion that the Wii 2 is already out there. In terms of technical prowess, maybe yeah. There is a large difference between the consoles raw power wise, but that is not the Wii's strength. The strength is that it opens up a large range of new genres that can be done well on the system. The standard controller is all that will be heavily supported by game developers for whatever reason so it is too late for any last minute new control schemes from the competition. The games are not all revamped versions of old games, but forays into entirely new genres occasionally. Some of the new genres are less well recieved critically I will admit, but that is a long post for another time.

Why don't you actually READ the reviews instead of commenting on how the reviewers are all incapable of being fair reviewers? The major problems in the other GTA games: aiming was terrible, graphics were subpar (compared to non-open world games). Those problems are not present in GTA (the graphics might not be CoD4 or Uncharted but they are quite good). The story is very good and open world is huge. Missions are fun. The game is 16-player online for the first time ever. Read the reviews for more details.