Let me start by saying I own a PS2, Cube, and a 360, so I'm not biased.  I've got love for all the cosoles (expect the PS3 because I can't justify the price -- but that's another story).

I'm beginning to think, based on buying and trying a LOT of used games at gamestop/eb games that IGN, Gamespot, Gamepro, and pretty much everyone else has very skewed and/or biases in their video game reviews.  It seems that graphics and mature themes seem to override the fun factor.  I played grand theft auto vice on the PS2 quite a bit and frankly, it don't think it justifies a 9+ rating -- much less a 9.6.  It seems that the reviewers really, really, really like violent sandbox games like GTA and they skew their reviews very high.  It's a neat game, no doubt, but I think a bit over rated.

Then we come to a game like Crash Nitro Kart on the XBOX.  I own the game and have played it quite a bit.  It got a 7.5 rating on gamespot and 7.4 on IGN.  Mario Kart Double Dash on the Cube got a 7.9 on both sites... Anyone that has played both games extensively would tell you that Crash is a 5 at best.  Serious framerate issues and the controls aren't very good.  I don't even want to play it because it is so bad.  The idea is a complete ripoff and fun factor is about nil.  Double dash is a lot more "fun", framerate and graphics are MUCH better and is, in general, an overall entertaining game.  I'd certainly put double dash in the high 8s.

This leads me to my ultimate question:  Are the next gen platforms that focus heavy on gore, blood, violence, and in general mature themes getting a free pass when it comes to harsh reviews?  How is it possible that every single first person shooter that hits the market seems to be an 8.5-9+?  Come on, they aren't that good and they aren't that original.  Anything over a 9, in my opinion, should be bringing very fresh ideas to the table even if it is in a "tired" genre.

And, more importantly, are "kiddie", "family", and "party" games getting less than they deserve, score-wise, because they don't have "adult" content and/or they exist primarily on Nintendo platforms?  Lego Star wars gets high 7s from Gamespot.  Who are they kidding?  That particular franchise is incredibly fun, has great graphics for "last-gen", and is one of the best uses of the Star Wars franchise to date.  That's an easy 8.9 if you factor in the overall fun factor and don't penalize the game for not having a "decapitate" or "disembowl" special move.

I'm looking at the Wii games getting hammered by reviewers and wondering how much their bias against the "fad" platform or lack of HD affects their final review.  By the same token, if GOW2 had it's viloence level toned way down, would it still get a 9+?

/soapbox 

you're totally right about wii games getting low reviews. They are not reviewing games by what the system capacities are, but rather comparing it to other systems, which is absolutely wrong, especially IGN is doing this.

Screw Matt.

A lot of large websites and magazines make a lot of money from ads for new games. From my understanding some publishers are well known for refusing to advertise on websites or in magazines which publish negative reviews for their games. Often editors are pressured to change reviews of games is the publisher is advertising heavily on the site or in the magazine when the game is released. Beyond that many publishers will only give out exclusive interviews or invitations to showings of their game if the website or magazine is very friendly to their games.

In general there are certain publishers who get better reviews for their games than is appropriate mainly because of how big of asses they are ...

Yeah, i think that many critics don't even bother to do a sceptical analysis on wii visuals and insead, just assume they look bad because of its inferior hardware. There are a few wii games that i wouldn't be disapointed with if they ended up on my 360.

They really are biased. At least my personal experience with Gamespot says so.

Look for the Shenmue at the site. They gave the game a 6.8. The review was so bad they changed it later to 7.8 leaving the text intact. I think that was the only time they have ever changed a game review in their site. The gamers say the game deserves a 9.1, they think it is worth a 7.8 (a 6.8 in reality). The game also won awards for artistic value, innovative gameplay and good storyline, but according to Gamespot Pacman Championship Edition for Xbox 360 is a better choice (7.9). This may not be your kind of game and the hype can kill even a great game, but this score is ridiculous.

Zelda Twilight Princess was another shock for me. I know as a Zelda fan that the series has its (minor might i say) flaws like decreasing challenge since a Link to the Past. I could even swallow the 8.8 for the game if they backed it up with good points. They say the graphics for the game are dated and the gameplay is repetive, and that everything has been done in other Zeldas. Well, I dont think that Xbox, PS2 or GC have any games as good looking as Zelda TP. Considering its a port from GC to Wii and that it is a launch title I dont see why comparing its graphics to games like Gears of War. As for the repetitive I dont know what they really mean. TP adds a lot of new items, minigames, quests to the classic Zelda formula. It may be boring to some demographics but repetitive is not the right word to describe it. Even if you say that Zelda formula is dated you would have to say that almost all game formulas are dated. Castlevania, Mega man, Final Fantasy, Tekken, Mario, FPS in general. If people wanted a never seen Zelda it would be Zelda the Racing Game.

Thats just 2 of the dozens of reviews that seens suspicious. Maybe later I will look for more and post them.

look at what their reviews are based on.

gameplay
graphics
value
sound

whatever, thats how they rate it. So a long game with great gameplay and sound that looks great like GTA will get high reviews.

Most "kiddie", "family", and "party" games are pathetic and get the score they deserve, they may do great in one area but are really mediocre in the rest. Why should that get a high rating ?

TBH, you shouldn't be taking the reviews at face value anyway. The game review is only based on one, or a few people's opinions. Also they are reviewing for their primary audience, which atm, is most likely people who like Gears of War, and aren't happy with Wii Sports.

Also, the reason they compare the graphics to PS3/xBox 360, is that they are comparing the alternatives, otherwise there wouldn't be anything to compare it to, I mean isn't that the point of reviewing something? To see if it's any better than it's competitors?

Yup. They are biased. Nothing is going to change that. People will argue this to death, but the core demographic that the Review sites aim at are, in a majority, the so-called "hardcore gamer". I have seen only a few sites that give merit to fun, but they are few and far between.

The only exception with Gamespot, that I am aware of, is that they gave Wario Ware: Smooth Moves (Wii) a 9.1, mainly because it made great use of the Wiimote all-around.

You guys are really sad and trying to justify Wii games getting low scores...

They rate the game on criteria, not whether it's mature or not...

How do you explain Pokemon getting high ass scores even though the graphics are god awful and it's not a mature game?

So sad, the fact that they are on Wii doesn't excuse sub PS2 graphics in some cases and the fact that they are fun doesn't excuse the game being very shallow and limited....

You know how many violent games get creamed by reviewers? Obviously you guys are ignoring those for the sake of argument: oh no biased against non mature games....