No, my point wasn't that, Gotcha. I will make my point using two statements:

1) People who read video game magazines generally are hardcore gamers that have the same tastes as the reviewers, who are (by and large) hardcore gamers themselves. You made this point, and I generally agree with it.

2)  Users who write reviews on metacritic are usually people who also read professional reviews on metacritic. I have no proof of this, it's simply logical.

In other words, it stands to reason that the people who write user reviews on meta critic are precisely the same people that gaming magazines target as readers. And these readers seem to believe that Wii Sports is a significantly better game than most critics do. Ergo, critics are not doing their job properly since their professional reviews diverge significantly from the opinions of their readers. 

So, come to think of it, I've basically come right back around to your restaurant critic analogy. Critics aren't rating games like Wii Sports on what they're trying to do, but this is so because their readers aren't ready for that separation. It'd be like the imagined effects of the very first extremely positive taco bar review. People reading it think that it's done in the style of previous reviews (that is, that the taco bar has the atmosphere of a five star french restaurant) and are severely disappointed in the reviewer when they get there.

Pro reviewers. I trust them about as far as I can throw them. I always use user reviews when I select a game. Sites like gamespot are good for that. Just sift through a ton and make your choices based on that. Game reviewers are generally under pressure to review certain games better than other, and they are generally never consistent with their numbers. User reviews are a better source if you can get a bunch of them.

Casual gamers don't read reviews so why bother...

I agree strongly with this portion of your post. I'm not arguing at all that critics CANNOT review Wii Sports - style games effectively; I'm just saying they haven't figured out how to yet. In fact, several of the critiques I've read thus far on metacritic say that almost precisely: they acknowledge that the games are targetting someone other than themselves, and that this target is new and growing. Therefore, reviews aren't easy to do yet. Sports games (Traditional ones, at least) now have 15 years of history from which the reviewers can draw experience: how does this new sports game stack up to its hundreds if not thousands of predecessors? Wii Sports / Play / Big Brain really don't have that type of pedigree to fall back on yet, and thus it's difficult for someone who may not thoroughly enjoy the game themselves to get a good sense of what others -- for whom the game may be more palatable -- may think. 

I also think your criticism of the sample pool on metacritic is a point well taken. Still, one should note that even on these other sites, Wii Sports is rated more highly by users than by critics. As you can see, that's quite uncommon, due to those 0.0 "OMG THIS STINKS ROFL" scores you've alluded to.  

I did forget to mention while I like to use friends reviews, I'm also generally wary of user reviews, especially for games like GTA, Zelda, Megaman, Halo, or any of those big name games.  There are some good ones in there with good information, but then there are also a lot of "OMG!!! I LOVE TEH MEGAAMN!"  Of course not all are as bad as that, but that's pretty much what they boil down to.

 I basically just came to the same conclusion in my reply to a portion of your last post. I absolutely agree. 

To repeat for emphasis: I'm not saying that reviewers can't adapt. They will do so, or they will become irrelevant, as they would no longer serve the purpose they were intended for. I'm just stating that for now, reviews are off kilter, as professional critics attempt to adapt to a burgeoning genre that is popular among users but doesn't exactly suit their own tastes. As we've now both stated, they need points of reference to start with, and I think the single greatest compliment one can give Wii Sports is that it will be the focal point for which all games of this ilk are judged for a long time to come. 

In general, I'm going to maintain that it's the user reviews that are off of the main readership - the people who write reviews are going to be biased in favor of the game, just as with many other 'niche' games that only appeal to a small section of the website's base. We sort of see this on metacritic, actually - note that Wii Sports only has 70 votes, while Zelda has hundreds. This is despite the fact that, quite demonstrably, more people own Wii Sports. Something is convincing fewer people to vote for Wii Sports, and I feel that it's that it's something of a niche game as far as hardcore gamers are concerned. And, as a niche title, I think the difference in scoring is quite appropriate.

I hope I'm not coming across as antagonistic - I strongly agree with your original claim that game reviewers don't know how to review games like Wii Sports properly. I just don't think that comparing user review scores to critical review scores provides strong evidence of this. Comparing the actual written reviews is much more telling, as you mention in a recent post, but is far less quantifiable. I'm also going to maintain that Wii Sports is fundamentally a niche game as far as the online readership of these sites is concerned.

I'm also in full agreement with you that we'll see a great deal of adaptation, and in the near future. We may even start to see nontraditional review specialists as nontraditional gamers become more mainstream on the internet. I think we'll see nontraditional games become a category similar to sports games - they'll be given scores that seem absurdly high to most of the site's readers but that seem just right to everyone who's actually interested in using the review score to determine whether or not to buy the game.

In this case, it sounds like we simply disagree on one issue: the validity (or valid application) of the user review scores, especially those on metacritic. I certainly see your point about the number of reviews given, but I would add one more thing in the defense of my position: I believe that Wii Sports is the type of game that should suffer greatly from serious trolling and 0.0 scores, as it is symbolic of the new movement in video games that I believe many hardcore gamers feel threatened by. It wholey represents Wii-style play over the playstyle of traditional consoles and blockbusters like Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, and Grand Theft Auto. The fact that Wii Sports hasn't been ground into dust by 0.0 scores surprises me -- and yet, we see quite the opposite.

And no, you don't seem antagonistic. In general, relatively peaceful and articulate conversations can only occur when people largely agree, aren't trying to provoke, but have small, sophisticated and subtle disagreements that drive lengthier conversations. Or put differently -- if you were simply saying "I hate Wii Sports, it sucks!" I'd simply ignore you. I spend time responding because I believe your posts have been imminently worth responding to.

I think Miyamoto said something about this at the GDC. He asked game critics to add a new section to game reviewing focusing on; 'how fun the game is for people who don't play them', but it is understandably hard for the hardcore (which critics normaly are) to do so.