Not to add fuel to the fire, but game reviews tend to follow what I call 'echo-theory'.

Coming into a new gaming generation, established gamers expect games to advance in a linear direction. If the improvements are off-kilter than the games are graded more harshly because the reviewer had expectations based on what he expected improvements to be, verse the actual strengths of the console.

In other words, SNES/Genesis games were judged on the strength of how they advanced NES genres. PS2/Xbox/GC games were the same way in comparison to how they advanced PS1/N64/Saturn games.

The nature of reviews change during periods when the industry is in a bit of a flux. These periods were..Atari to NES, SNES/Gen to PS1/N64/Saturn, and now PS2/Xbox/GC to Wii (360 and PS3 continue linearly down the path).

I remember back in the day Super Mario 64 was critiquied for being too easy by gamers from the Atari-SNES era. Now, when I talk to people under age ~15 or so the game is regarded as one of the hardest games in 3D (these are who grew up on consoles DC/PS2/Xbox/GC mostly).

The point is, alot of 3D games are much much easier than 2D games (go back and play the original Contra, or the original Zelda). This generation will have complaints of a different nature by gamers, until a new generation arises and changes the perceptions of the industry (through sales) of what makes a good game.

Looking back old-school jaded gamers gave Nights a 6 on Gamespot, but 12 years later when I play that I still can't understand it.

The point is, the dominant reviews of revolutionary new gameplay tend to be echoes of the previous generation. Until the old guard realizes the merit of the new, games played in revolutionary new ways are reviewed harshly - it is the echo of old complaints from older gamers that keeps revolutionary game play from being reviewed instantly.

Children, children. Need I remind everyone that there is more than enough success to go around. Why must we keep running in circles? Well I suppose this thread is to blame, making people defensive and all. Pointing fingers and throwing stones. But can't we all just get along. If you can't find a game on a rival system that you might enjoy, then you probably aren't being truthful. Games are meant to be played. Companies are not meant to be worshipped.

Nintendo is making entertainment for people. When other software publishing companies learn how to make entertainment for the Nintendo entertainment interface that people enjoy there will be more entertaining titles coming from those companies for people possessing those interfaces to enjoy. Successful companies sell a lot of entertainment and the thing that sells the most is the entertainment that people buy. Companies with laudable business plans consistently create good entertainment for entertainment interfaces that can support their costs and that people desire to buy. It's a very simple game to understand and a very complex game to master.

P.S. - Nice post "Source"! 

Astrodust, I fear that your logic and intelligence will go ignored, sadly. :(

Question for all those that out right disagree with the article, did you even read it ? and if you did what specific paragraph is so wrong in your opinion ?

Many of you seem so angry, i just want to know what caused it.

Have you read the thread?

 Pretty much right when the writer quickly throws away Excite Truck and Mario Party as complete crap.  I completely disagree with him, as I've had more fun with Excite Truck than a lot of recent racers...the controls were new and fun, and the graphics weren't half bad...moving along at 60 fps it was very fast.  Mario Party was an overall enjoyable game...it only gets mediocre reviews because it's the 8th game and not much is new.  That doesn't inherently make it bad though.

And this guy's whole article hinges on his opinion that 3rd party games on the Wii suck...even though I'd disagree with him on a lot of games.

Also this paragraph is completely messed up:

_{"Now it doesn’t take a genius (or a hardcore gamer) to realize that the current offerings on Nintendo’s Wii have been stark awful, with the exception of Twilight Princess and Paper Mario. This is not to say that games like Project Sylpheed, Hour of Victory or Vampire Rain haven’t left bad tastes in the mouths of Xbox 360 or PC gamers. But this is to point out that surrounding the releases of both of Microsoft’s Vampire Rain and Project Sylpheed was Forza Motorsport 2 and the upcoming Halo 3. The latter are anything but bargain-bin bait. Even Midway’s Hour of Victory will be followed by the likes of Unreal Tournament III and John Woo Presents Stranglehold. "}

You ask if people read the article, but I have to ask, did you bother reading their replies, or are you just assuming anything that has something negative to say about Nintendo is correct?  The article is complaining about a phenomenon that has been in gaming since the PSone.  It's called shovelware, and it always sits on the console with the dominant market share.  The only reason that people are complaining about it this generation when they didn't the last 2 generations is that instead of it being on Sony consoles it's on the Nintendo console.  I loved my PSone and PS2, but when I walked into a gamestop I saw a whole wall full of complete shit, and I had to dig through that to find anything worthwhile. 

The Wii is no different.  It caught developers off guard so of course the first few titles you will see are going to be shovelware.  However, I submit to you that these games are no more crap than some generic shooter like Area 51 being made for the PS3 and 360.  If you really think that the Wii will never get big games, even when it's got 50%+ of the market share, I think you are kidding yourself.  I'd love to know of any leading console in the previous 4 generations of modern gaming that didn't experience the majority of 3rd party support.  Nintendo getting that support is something young gamers have trouble accepting as an innevitability, simply because in the short time these kids have been gaming they have only seen Sony dominate.  '

For gamers who have been around since the Atari this whole argument is a gigantic joke.  For some reason all that matters to modern gamers is having the winning console and proving that theirs is the best.  These people thought Sony was some invincible wall that was going to dominate gaming for the rest of existence, but gaming goes in cycles.  Old styles only last so long.  The standard style of uping the graphics and nothing else every generation was making gaming a niche hobby.  The Wii was necessary to revive that industry and bring it back into the mainstream.  I'm not saying it had to be Nintendo, or even that it had to be the same idea as the Wii in specific, but something needed to change.  Ironically, it's the young gamers that are having trouble accepting this change, and the older gamers that are willingly embracing it.  Classic gaming is not going to die out.  All systems will have core games.  If you are so insecure with your system of choice that you constantly have to justify it by attacking the more popular systems, then you obviously are not enjoying your system of choice.

Sorry for the long rant.