Hold on Hold on Hold on...

There is no dispute here that MGS2 is one of the best games ever made and most absolutely deserves the 9.6 that it got!!!

 I understand this completely, but the Wii people jumped on your badnwagon and started bashing reviewers as being biased and whatnot...

 I have fun with Wii Sports trust me, I understand the appeal to play against other people especially when you're drunk lol but I will never ever say this game is above other games that I hold in very high regard. Even if it is funner than some in some cases.

I just don't like this new thing of bashing reviews as biased because they are scoring Wii games low in some cases. 

 I like this guy.

 I got it, and it was stupid. I loved the gameplay though. There are only a few games that even try to compete -- Splinter Cell, Syphon Filter -- and none of them come close to matching the depth and quality of the gameplay. 

But the story is not-a-so-good. Look, in terms of modern dialogue, I've read a good deal of Pulitzer prize winning novels: I loved "Adventures of Kavalier and Clay," really enjoyed all of Saul Bellow's novels, and profoundly, deeply love "The Unbearable Lightness of Being." So I can understand great art, okay? Understanding isn't my problem. My problem is that the dialogue stinks. 

I do agree with some of this: the problem isn't inherent to the Wii, although it is most glaring with that system, because the "Casual" crowd seems to be flocking there, and casual style games are those that seems to be throwing reviewers for a loop.

I'm going to repeat what Dan Hsu, the editor in chief of EGM, said about Wii Play in his review, because I think it distills the precise problem reviewers are having: "Play is for people who don't really play games, and as someone who really does, that's a problem."

So my opinion is this: anyone who thinks reviewers specifically downgrade the scores on Wii games because they're on the Wii is a tin foil hat wearer. However, anyone who thinks reviewers give lower scores to games that are more casual is probably right on: Dan Hsu has said just that, right here, in this quotation. Hsu, at least, does have trouble with such reviews. Other reviewers have said the same. Those casual gamers are the ones not receiving the reviews they may deserve; the phenomenon isn't inherently tied to the Wii, but I think we can largely agree that the Wii has more casual friendly games than PS3/360 does.

As a counter example, anyone who feels the reviewers short changed Zelda:TP is nuts. It's clearly a game that appeals to hardcore gamers, and I suspect Metroid Prime and Galaxy will recieve their due as well.  

Yes, you did. You directly compared Wii Sports to a "crappy comedy," and contrasted this with a comparison to more difficult games, such as Resistance: Fall of Man. You implied a comparison between these games and "The Godfather." If you'd like to say that isn't what you meant to imply, that's fine; but it's the clear inference that any reader should make based on your wording. 

I agree with you.  I don't think the random Wii games deserver better than the mediocre reviews they have recieved.  That doesn't mean they are bad games, just not incredible games.  There is one case where I disagree and that's Sonic and the Secret Rings, but, I just said I disagree.  See this is my point, I don't pay attention to reviewers because I don't really care what they think of the games I play.  One of my favorite games of all time is Harvest Moon (most entries in the series are equally awesome).  I loved Mario Kart Double Dash.  I really could care less if big money company skewed reviewers like what I like, much less if I play what the general public consesus likes.  I have owned every game system previous to this generation, because I found value in them.  EVEN THE 3DO.  That's right, the 3DO. Soccer kid kicked ass.  This time I own a Wii, DS, and PSP.  The difference this generation is I honestly don't have a reason to buy either of the other 2 yet.  I may someday, but I wouldn't be surprised if I skipped them this generation.  That's my personal choice, and I don't really care if reviewers are saying Halo 3 is 10s accross the board and the best game ever, because it doesn't appeal to ME.  That's the bottom line.  Reviews are based on the website's majority audience.  Don't bother with them unless you are part of that audience.  Do your own research, find your own methods.  Who cares what some jackass tells you to play.  That's not what gaming is about.

 You're assuming that reviewers are skewed by the big companies which they are not, if you read EGM or 1up.com for example some of the most unknown and undersold games get as good or better than the biggest blockbusters because they are better.

  These reviewers love video games, so they give credit where it's due unless it's not a credible orgnization but that would be the exception not the rule.

   What if there was a brand new game and you knew nothing about it, would you not consult reviews to understand what it's about? I would, then I decide if it's worht buying or renting...

There are lots of other circumstances where reviews are great to have as a reference, you are the decision maker, but it's great to have insight into a game before you risk buying it or playing it. 

 Well if it is to avoid conflict I can stop right here and say that IMO it sucks, but thats just my opinion. I know the game is a cinematic achieviment with outstanding graphics (even today) and great voice acting. But the gameplay and story really killed the game for me. Artistic license was fighting Psycho Mantis in Metal Gear Solid (with the flying chairs and sofas). Metal Gear 2 takes it to a ridiculous level where you fight a gay vampire inside a pool with a rocket launcher. What about the Lady Luck controling the Metal Gear missiles after her bullet dodging gizmo was taken away? Or the president of the USA being the last boss and looking like Dr Octopus from spiderman? Dont forget that all the events in Metal Gear 1 were planned from the beggining, even the ones that the Patriots couldnt guess (like DARPA chief being killed in the torture and Decoy octopus dying from FOXdie). The gameplay has even more issues. The boss battles lack the impact of the original metal gear, like the third boss where you just run left and right to avoid her shots and the second vamp battle. Last boss basttle feels awkward with the use of the right analog.

The stamina and health bars dont help the gameplay. Stamina is there just for people who want 0 kills for big boss rank. Its sad that a Boss has different Healths for punches and bullets. The realism isnt good either, you punch and use tranquilizer on bosses to the point of them almost collapsing but they can still take 3 clips of automatic fire. I cant get over the fact that you have to kill Fatman with tranquilizers for the BigBoss rank but he dies after the Battle anyways. Seeing him bleeding that bad in the cutscene makes me wonder if he is allergic to tranquilizers. Raiden as the main character dont help me liking this game. His specials items are ... WIGS. Is he a crossdresser or the worlds savior?

 I hope you dont take it personal OriGin but that game is so bad IMO thatI cant stand the Metal Gear franchise anymore. I havent played the 3rd one to the end and have no interest in the 4th. The second game really made me hate the series. Just play the games you want I am not Jack Thompson to tell people what games are good or bad.

It's not really assuming anymore. When you change the review of a game because you didn't score it high enough (Gamespot orignally posted Halo 2 at 9.1, an hour later it was changed to 9.4. Gamefaqs lit up about this), you kind of give away your alliegances. When you take a reviewer who has written MANY blogs about his dislike of Nintendo, and give him the review job for the BIGGEST game Nintendo is releasing that year (a game that won game of the year on many other sites, even over Gears of War) and he gives it an 8.8, it's pretty obvious reviews are biased. When reviewers crack "Gamecubes ductaped together" jokes (both IGN and 1UP love these) it's pretty obvious they are biased. When the sites are flooded with PS3 and 360 game advertisements, it's pretty obvious they are biased. Sure some games get fair reviews, and most sites have at least a couple fair reviewers, but as a whole the sites are not to be trusted.