There are some bad apples.

Hehe well we can leave it at that. As I said, it's more important to me to do my own research.

I knew I wasn't going to like this thread before I read it, because I assumed it would be about Wii scores, but thanks for at least saving some credibility for it...

There is no conspiracy.  The Wii is obviously very popular right now, so the theory that high selling games are rated higher doesn't hold up.  Okami, Viva Pinata, and others don't sell well but get good reviews.

Reviewers do love graphics, but so do gamers.  Yes, fun is the main factor, but depth and subtance is always nice as well.  Wii Sports may be lots of fun to play but it's not a very deep game. The fun is only there for short periods at a time.  I think Gears of War specifically was a little overrated but on the whole there is no conspiracy. 

Shrug, I crack the Gamecubes taped together joke a lot. And it's fairly accurate.

Although if you taped 5 Gamecubes together or 6, you'd have the equivalent of a PS3/Xbox360. And all systems upgraded hardware or changed hardware. 6 game cubes taped together is still cheaper than a PS3.

Indeed.  Despite 1UP constantly making jokes about the Wii being 2 gamecubes, the depiction is accurate and does not change their review scores.  They still look forward to real Wii games, but right now there aren't many. 

"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. "

The actual score is 9.6 so they probably raised the scores more than once. Maybe they got a call from Microsoft PR screaming: Do you really think a 9.1 will get you a Halo 3 Legendary edition when it comes out? Dont forget who pays for the hookers and game parties you go.

I didnt know about the nintendo hating blogs. However it was strange that the guy said Zelda TW was repetitive and non creative after givind Halo 2 a 9.6 (single player at least wasnt very 9.6 IMO).

We can't really diss a title simply because of its genre. For example, a comedy movie deserves a great review if it is a great comedy. Ebert sometimes rates a Jim Carrey's movie higher than a drama about holocaust. In other words, we can't give a low score just because it is not a serious drama.

Likewise, a softcore game should not be dismissed just because it is a game for casual gamers. It should be evaluated based on how it appeals to its target audience. It is about how good it is given its genre.

Some of those softcore titles have somehow managed to capture the hearts of new gamers in an unprecedented way, have shown innovative ways to utilize new interfaces, and have contributed to the gaming industry through the expansion of audience.

The problem is that those reviewers don't really know how to categorize these new games because these audience-expansion titles aren't exactly "action-game" in a traditional sense. Unlike conventional shooting/sports titles, these games do not require very quick reflex to play. They don't necessarily have stunning graphics or rich storytelling. But some of those titles are just so much fun. Yet the reviewers don't really know how to (or want to) create a new game category or new evaluation schemes for those titles. It is simply easier for them to put complicated action games on the pedestal, and to undervalue casual games.

The effort to make gameplay look like simple by providing an easy entry for new gamers while making it quite entertaining for various audience groups (kids, adult, seniors / male, female / hardcore, softcore etc) simultaneously should not be easily dismissed. It is a work of talented developers. Great softcore titles deserve great scores as casual game, just like great comedy movies deserve great reviews.

Again, remember that I never said that the Wii games don't deserve the scores (other than the ridiculous TP score from Gamespot). I pointed out that reviewers often show a lot of bias and that it has been shown to effect reviews in the past. I didn't like MGS2 either, but I really don't want to get into that argument so we will just leave it as my opinion. I hated Prince of Persia after Sands of Time but they got ridiculously high reviews for being mediocre games at best. There is certainly some hype and bias effect on reviews.

Umm PS3 and 360 have almost 12 times as much ram as a Gamecube, their processors are 8-10 times faster than a Gamecube (actually the PS3 is a lot more than that), and the gpu at least on the 360 is about 20 times faster.  So it would take more than 5 or 6 gamecubes, more like 12-15.

Is it? heh.  I may not have remembered it right.  I just remember gamefaqs boards raging at the score being upped by .3.  There were screenshots of it too.  Heh, I thought it was pretty sad honestly.  I still use sites like IGN and 1UP to help me determine what games I am interested in, I just take them with quite a lot of salt.  They are just small parts of insight into the games.