Alright, misunderstanding. I'm not attempting to justify Carnival games, but instead to show the superiority of the casual market when it comes to enjoying their games based upon their own opinion.

I simply used Carnival Games as an example. You could replace it with Wii-Sports, Mario and Sonic at the Opympics, or Wii-Fit, if you so desire.

However, don't presume that you know what game is best for anyone. Perhaps for one person, Carnival Games is the perfect game for them and they love it above all others. Saying, "Well you're right, except that Carnival Games really does suck and n00b casuals don't know what they're missing with a real game, just look at its gamerankings score." is a slippery slope that ends up back where we started.

So I've never played Carnival Games. I dunno if it sucks. I do know that if a casual gamer really finds a lot of fun with the game, then he made a worthy purchase, and classifying any game based souly on a gameranking score is foolish.

That said, we're classifying Carnival Games on what we assume it to be, which is shovelware cashin. If we are right, then we have no issues with criticizing the game, because then we are using our judgment, rather than someone elses. 

Lol. Don't fear the Casual Gamer, it will become the Core Gamer.
http://vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=27617

Nah, they just not hardcore enough for you, are you disappoint about GTA IV, Bioshock or Orange box/CoD 4?

You perfectly illustrate his point here.

I like the food at MCDonalds. People try to tell you MCDonalds food sucks because it is too fat, unhealthy, cheaply produced... in a society where only the calories of your food are important it doesn´t matter when I say "Yeah, but it´s tasty. I just want some tasty food!"

Just because MCDonalds food doesn´t cost much, doesn´t fit the health standarts of our society and is fat doesn´t make it less tasty. The same goes for "Casual" games: They don´t have the graphics, the production value or the complex controls but hey, some of them are fun!

You don´t know why people go to MCDonalds before you ate some Mc food. You´ll never understand why people buy casual games before you´ve actually played them. If the standart we judge a games awesomness is graphics and production value, complex controls and huge add campaigns then "casual" games will never get good scores. If we judge a game by it´s fun and how fast I can get into it... let´s just say I like MCDonalds food.

Me? LoL, no, those games are all pretty fantastic.

No hardcore gamer I know would ever only take review scores into consideration when buying games. In fact, all the hardcore gamers I know love the games they play, and are much more harsh with any flaws they find in games than someone more casual would be. I don't see your point about core gamers playing games that aren't fun simply because they score well on gamerankings.

What I generally go by is if it averages 70 or higher it's definitely worth looking into. I still end up liking many games that average even lower than that though. I thought Cooking Mama was a lot of fun, and it's sitting at 61 right now.

So average review scores are alright to get a general idea of the quality of a game, but should not be taken as absolute truth. This isn't a science, it's entertainment. Unless they start measuring fun in megajoules, I don't care how many points one game receives over another.

True, but they miss games that are fun because they didn't score well on gamerankings.

hardcore forever. u know. when u think of it. it makes no sense. i mean, why a "core?" the planets have hard cores..... kk..... i dunno wut im talking about.... nevermind... but when u actually stop and think about the words we subconsciencly speak, without looking into the actual meaning, ull be surprised how much the english language makes no sense. what im i talking about? planets... words... bottom line. HARDCORE IS RIGHT. SOFTCORE IS WRONG!!!! why? i duno. cuz softcore (lol... softcore... thats wut they shud call em) shouldnt waste their time playing shovelware. i mean, sure they mite have fun, but thed have so much more fun playing the better games, if they took the time to develop the skill. o well. let grammy have her cup of tea while she plays her stupid bowling game

Well written post, but I'm afraid several people will look at this as an attack on them and response negatively.

I totally agree that people have lost the interest of the "fun factor". One of my favourite games this gen, Big Brain Academy, recieved a score of less than 70. Mario and Sonic, a game I find very funny (I don't own it, played it at other places), recieved 66%. Mario Party 8 recieved less than 65% at GR.

What do the three above have in common? They're bad - on a technical status. M&S has some glitches, bad graphics, and so on. The game is fun, but who the heck cares?

Big Brain Academy looks like a N64 game, but they are perfect for the riddles you get, which makes you have to think, which is fun.

Mario Party has another problem really, that it has too small differences between each litteration. The mini-games are also low quality physics and graphics, with a couple of glithces.

I kind of lost my point there...

That's right, you got some disappointment and you got some promised too. Casual is still casual, hardcore is still hardcore. That's called life, you will always get something you don't want eventually. Follow your on path, good game will still deliver to you.

It just a standard, that's why sometimes bad game sells, good game don't. You shouldn't care it that much. Only 5% of the people would go online and check at the review score, it only end up with less than that for deciding whenether to buy the game or not. You never really know the market, that's why earlier analysts were wrong horribly http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=27117 , Sony PlayStation 3: 2008 35.5m, Nintendo Wii 2008= 16.5m, Xbox 360 2007=  20.5m |2008= 30.5m

Out of topic, by looking at your avatar, I always want to ask "Are you going to buy Madworld?", I am wondering.