This is an honest question, and I don't think it's a ridiculous one. I'm going to make the case that the traditional reviewers are simply not set up to review a good deal of the most popular DS/Wii games, and if anyone disagrees, please feel free to explain why.

I've felt that many Wii games have gotten lower scores than I would give them, particularly games like Wii Sports and Wii Play (I wouldn't be surprised if Wii Sports ends up being considered the most important game of this generation). Games that are light, easy, and completely devoid of graphical intensity seem to be getting much lower scores than I believe is merited.

Simply put: video game reviewers are by and large hardcore gamers; thus, games that specifically target casual gamers simply may not appeal to their palette. This isn't just guess work on my part either -- by simply browsing metacritic, you can see criticisms of Wii Sports such as "For the hardcore there’s not much here that you’ll be playing for more than an hour," and " Its appeal and flaws lay with its simplicity." Moreover, one can see how user reviews are almost uniformly higher for Wii games than the critics give: Wii Sports, for example, has a 9.1 user rating compared to a 7.6 critical rating. The user rating for Wii Sports is actually a higher rating than that for any PS3 game currently available.

The second major issue are the controls. As is true in any artistic/entertainment venue, any profound change in design is usually met with scorn from the traditional critics -- and in the cases where the changes aren't scorned, they are at the very least discomforting. Many of these game reviewers have had a game pad in their hands since they were 5; it's much more difficult to immediately accept a sweeping revision of the traditional game pad if you've known and loved it for decades than if you've never played games before now.

I think the best description of the conflict the Wii causes for critics was given by Dan Hsu, executive editor of EGM, in his review of Wii Play: "Play is for people who don't really play games, and as someone who really does, that's a problem."

I agree.

Reason why some Wii/DS games can have Mixed Reviews. 80% on one site, but 40% on another.

I've never trusted game reviewers anyways. I generally wait for people I know to play them or at least hear from someone I trust on something like a forum.

I don't agree here. I certainly don't take reviewers as Gospel, but if a game gets near perfect scores everywhere I look, I can feel fairly safe that it will be pretty good; if a game gets sub 4.0 scores from most reviewers, it's safe to say that it's not so good. At least that was true, until the Wii. Some of the games getting mediocre reviews are actually quite good, and they're getting these lesser reviews for the same, consistent reasons: low end graphics and simplistic gameplay. Again, Wii Sports is the ultimate example of this: other than Zelda: Twilight Princess, I still cannot find a game from this generation that has a higher user rating on meta critic. Not Gears of War, not Elder Scrolls, not Resistance: Fall of Man, not Motorstorm. Nothing.


Also importantly, the disparity between the critical and user based scores for Wii Sports is 1.5 (out of 10): I can find a few games that have a disparity of 1.1 or 1.0, but nothing (thus far, in 30 minutes of scanning) with a larger disparity than that. This suggests that critics and end users are at a significant disconnect over the quality of this game.

I actually read it. Some interesting points. Not true for all sites, IMO, but it does seem to be an issue.

When the rare game does get the straight 9.5+ or consistent

disagree

the reviews are reviewing for a full experience. they will say if they think the game play is awesome. if you like the review content than you will like the game probably.

what game is better, wii play or resistance? hands down the better overall game is resistance. it has a more full experience. that is not saying that what wii sports does is bad, it could mean that wii sports does its few things really well.

do story, gameplay, audio, graphics, and extras determine the game? yes, all of them. missing one part brings down the game as a whole, but it might not affect the actual experience. dinging it for not fulfilling all of them is the right thing to do. if you dont like the score read the review and than complain about the reasons.

Well, I guess that is part of the problem. It doesnt seem like it will ever change. W/E.
I read the reviews anyway.

The only problem I ever see is when comparing scores on, say, PS3 and Wii. Obviously, PS3 will be favored, because of the scoring system...

that's why you actually read the review to see the differences.

 If Resistance is better how come it didn't win any award (besides best PS3 game)?  Not trying to get into any kind of argument about that game but it was a rushed piece of crap.  It was buggy beyond belief, it had no style whatsoever, and it was completely uninspired.

 Yes, story, gameplay, audio, can all help make a game (pardon me, but I don't have a clue what you mean by extras) great but they don't all need all of them.   Take Tetris for example.  The game has no story whatsoever but it's one of the greatest games ever made.  Ever heard of Pac-Man? No story there.  I guess you can also discount any sports game while we're at it.

 I know what you're saying though, the sports games suck.  Well, what about Final Fantasy VI?  Many people think of that game as the best game in the series and a good people think of it as the best game ever.  Why would thy think that?  The gameplay in that game is terrible.  The character skills are broken and leveling is work.

I know you don't want to accept it, but Wii Sports is an amazing game.  It's that plain and simple.  Yes, it doesn't have the best graphics ever (who cares, games were good before 1997), the audio isn't something that will blow you away, it's simple, but it's fun and that's what matters.  Another thing that matters is that it opened up gaming to countless amounts of people.  I don't know how many people after playing or even seeing Wii Sports decided they needed a Wii because it was so much fun. 

 With Resistance, I have a buddy that was taking the Insomniac design test, bought a PS3 for Resistance, returned the PS3 the next week and didn't bother with the test because he was so disgusted with the game.  Does that sound like a good game?  No.  The reasons it got high scores were simply because there was nothing else and OMG!! it pushes so many poly's!!!

/rant