I must admit that is a good point...

 I dont want to take the cynical approach but according to your post Viva Pinata may not be a Kiddy game because it got a 8.3. And if the review is not biased its correct to say that the game is better than or as good as metal gear acid 1 and 2 for PSP (both 8.2). It is also close to Gran Turismo 1 (8.6),Gran Turismo 2 (8.5) and Gran Turismo 4 (8.9). Crash Nitro Kart (7.5) is in the same level as Need for Speed Urderground 2 (7.4) and Carbon (7.4).

Viva Pinata got a high review cause it wasn't a cheap ass game. It was built well and no major flaws in it.

If you want to compare it to cooking mama or something its just stupid. Its like comparing an accord with a old car with hydrolics. The old car can be fun to play around in but the car you are going to use the most and enjoy more will be the accord

I am not saying Viva Pinata is a crappy game. Cooking Mama is a dissapointment I will not argue with this. Its just that kiddy and fun for everyone games get good scores also. However it is still a biased review, when a game has the Xbox360, Rare and Microsoft games studio tags its is a little hard to go below the 8`s range. Just look at Perfect Dark Zero. I own the original Perfect Dark and I think it deserved a 8. Gamespot gave the Perfect Dark Zero a 9. 7 was the highest a game like this would ever score if it was not from Rare.

Don't ever pay too much attention to the actual score a game gets, the scoring system it too corrupt. Just read the text and get an overall feel for the strengths and flaws in the game. Any score you see could really be 1.5 or more higher or lower than what it is depending on any number of factors including most of all personal taste.

 This isn't an argument that they just pulled out of a hat, Ckmlb. Reviewers have even ADMITTED that they're having trouble. Consider all these quotations:

From the EGM review of Wii Play: ""Play is for people who don't really play games, and as someone who really does, that's a problem."

Review of Wii Sports: "For the hardcore there’s not much here that you’ll be playing for more than an hour"

From Penny Arcade: ""We're not really set up to discuss titles like Brain Age, Big Brain Academy, or Carnival. That is not meant to impugn these titles in any way, because they're uniformly well made. I must admit to being taken aback by Carnival, whose manifestation of pure, country fair fun was a billion times more authentic than it needed to be. And Big Brain on the Wii utilizes some forward thinking online capability - the way you could race a friend's ghost in a multiplayer racing game, you can race a simulation of their brain in a series of puzzles. But in the same way we do not review most games for children, and most enthusiast sites don't, these "training" games represent a shard of the growing, fabulously lucrative "adult" space that has no resonance with me and probably most of the people they showed these games to."

There are many more, but those illustrate the point adequately; reviewers admit that these games aren't targetted at them, and there is a problem reviewing them.

I ignore game review scores. They aren't biased by violence, per say, as much as biased on their own reader demographics. Sites like 1UP, IGN, and Gamespot are read primarily by Sony/Microsoft gamers so those are the games that get the high scores. Simply look around the advertising sponsors on the websites. Surely you don't think that these have no bearings on the scores games receive. Gamespot is full of Microsoft stuff, so they rate 360 games high. When Halo 2 came out the first review put up was a 9.1. An hour later it was changed to a 9.4. Twilight Princess was given an 8.8 (far lower than the majority of the reviewing community). Of course bias exists. I buy games based on my own research into the gameplay, rentals from Gamefly, and word of mouth from people who I know share my tastes in games. It also helps to hop on gamefaqs forums for the game and ask about it, because gamefaqs users tend to be brutally honest about the flaws and pluses in a game. Review sites are a circus that caters to individual demographics and companies. Ignore them.

It's very true that IGN and Gamespot base their reviews on hype and how big they think that they'll be.  System Shock 2 got an 8.5 from Gamespot and a 9.0 from IGN.  Resistance: Fall of Man got an 8.6 from Gamespot and a 9.1 from IGN.  Resistance among gamers is not considered to be anymore than a decent FPS.  System Shock 2 is regarded as one of the greatest games of all time.  The gamers who played SS2 mostly decided this the first time they played it.  IGN and Gamespot later admitted they were wrong essentially and put SS2 in numerous greatest game of all time lists.  So why is it that the first time they played the game they didn't think so highly of it?  Could it be the lack of hype and the fact that it wasn't Half-life?  Resistance got special treatment because it was the most hyped PS3 game there was.  There are a lot of other instances where IGN and Gamespot have given some of the greatest games of all times lacking reviews.  Fallout 2 comes to mind.   

The fact that Wii sports was give only 7.5 at IGN definitely indicates that the conventional criteria those reviewers have employed aren't working very well for some of the new audience-expansion titles. I suppose things will gradually change as we'll see more excellent softcore titles in the market.

 Resistance is considered one of the best console FPS games out there my friend, where do you get this gamers' consensus that you have come up with?

Anyway it's obvious you guys are way too stubborn to accept the fact that Wii sports and Wii Play are not that great as games, though they may be fun.

You might have fun at some crappy comedy movie or action movie but you accept that it's no godfather but you guys can't comprehend this at all.