Please, please do not compare any game to Godfather. I would love -- absolutely love -- for any game to have characters, dialogue, or thematic value of that quality, but we are not even close. 

It's like comparing Gears of War to Hamlet or something. It just suggests a profound lack of knowledge about high art T_T 

 Did I compare games to the godfather? I said the video game equivilant if you can have one would be the complete opposite of of Wii Sports which is the crappy thrill ride movie equivilant.

The fact that right after saying that you go and compare Godfather to Hamlet I think suggest your profound lack of knoweldge about high art... 

The answer is simple.

Reviews on GAMING websites are written by GAMERS, therefore the games that are skewed towards the 'hardcore' crowd are going to score much higher. This oppinion is very 'gamer' skewed.

Expect high scores for Metroid, Smash Bros Braw and Mario Galaxy because they are all core gamer games.

Games like Singstar, Wii Play, Buzz, Wii Sports, Big Brain Academy aren't made to appeal directly to the harcore gamers and therefore they get lower reviews because of this.

Sales are not directly related to reviews, and the fun you have cannot be taken directly from reviews... so many times have a played a game after seeing it get a crap review from one of the big sites and loved the shit outta it... it don't mean nothing it's just their oppinion.

Halo 2 got massive scores - c'mon tell me that wasn't bought.

I remember the shenmue review on Gamespot, I remember that the reviewer found the game boring as trite, and that's fair enough if he found it boring then that's his oppinion.

PLUS for these guys who spend all day reviewing games and writing game news the actually fundamental gameplay and game construction has to be very 'tech' and up to their high standards.

IGN gave Big Brain Academy a 5 for graphics, it had no true 16:9 widescreen for the mini-games but i've played that game and it looks good and clean it might not be a polygonal masterpiece but for what it is trying to do the graphics are great, there are no ugly jaggies, the colours are rich and pretty... I just think it's stupid to review a game on those merrits when it clearly isn't trying to be something it's not.

I remember that the game Amped 3 (a snowboard game) got the award of the best history for 2005 at Gamespot. The game came out at the end of the year along with the Xbox 360 and already got a lot of awards and made it to the finalist of several categories. Well a lot of 360 games that had been released a month before the end of the year got some awards too. The sad thing is that looking back at the site they edited the award and gave the best history to Indigo Prophecy. They cant back up their opinions and that pisses me of. Final Fantasy VIII (the worst game of the series IMO) got a 9.5 and a incredible hype. Recently they made some April Fool`s joke where they listed the top 10 FF games. They put games like Final Fantasy Legend 1 and 2 for gameboy, Mystic Quest for Snes, Chronicles for GC, FF snowboarding for cel phones and even ths movie Spirits Within. The joke would be ok, but they listed FF VIII as well and TWICE. They mock the game for its stupid and long summon system animation. That would be great when the game came out and had a "best game ever" aura. The 9.5 is still there. Maybe in the future they will jokes about Metal Gear Solid 2 stupid storyline but the game still got a 9.6.

 Just because you didn't get the story, doesn't mean it was stupid...

Lemme show you how 'biased' reviewers are against Wii games and graphics or whatnot.

Metacritic average ratings for the following games:

Warioware: Smooth Moves (83)
Mercury Meltdown Revolution (80)
Rayman Raving Rabbids (77)
Wii Sports (76)
Excite Truck (73)

I'm sure these are all hardcore graphical masterpieces...

I got the story. Just because you swallowed it doesnt mean you are smart. Or do you think that liquid hand possessing Ocelot to a point that even his face changes is something realistic for a game that takes itself so serious?

I think it was stated, but I'd imagine that there would be talks with some reviewers to say or rate the product a certain way to use it as marketing to try and sell the product. Though I'm sure taking one or two sentences out of an entire review works too, lol.

One thing that annoys me about reviews is that there are reviews that rate games one way and that's based on all the popular games as opposed to looking to looking at them differently (though you could argue the time it would take to do that in a game that does something different and sucks). I think it was Gamespot that reviewed Calling All Cars or made comments against Calling All Cars as a full game as opposed to what it was, a cheap downloadable game. Though there is probably more to it than just that.

 I wasn't tyring to justify wii games getting low scores... reread my post.  I'm just making a point that reviews seem to be heavily skewed at times and completely contrary to the "overall fun" I've experienced from playing the same game.  I used Mario Kart/Crash Nitro Kart as an example because it's just one recent experience where they are rated the same but clearly Crash is crap in comparison...  I'm quite confident that most of the crap reviews the Wii has received are deserved...