Sorry, but Little big planet is a hardcore game, which only looks like a casual game. (Level-editing is not very casual ...)

And I am pretty sure, that more people played and enjoyed Wii-Sports, than Metal Gear Solid 4. However, I think that both games are quality games. They just have different qualities.

I think this is an important point.

Games should be judged on their own merits. What I object to is the judgement of casual titles by a hardcore criteria that is almost diametrically opposed to them.

It’s fine to judge AAA hardcore games on Xbox360 with AAA hardcore games on PS3, but when you throw them in with Nintendo’s casual hits, you are comparing apples to oranges.

Sure, I admit that a comparison based purely on sales is not perfect, but it’s more grounded in reality and it’s more representative.  A casual perspective is extremely rare in the hardcore dominated gaming press, so a casual point of view is not represented in a metacritic comparison. But both hardcore gamers and casual gamers buy games, so both demographics are present in a sales comparison.

quote of the year!

lol haxxiy
are you out of high school? They remove bias, because it is no longer a minority that decides.

What the problem is is that you want a handicap. There are casual wii titles that are AAA on MC.

The criteria for a game to be AAA is first and foremost, this? Could the game possibly have been improved without using more space. That is, was is tested enough to the point where a tester couldn't find anything to improve on?

Mario and Sonic at the Olympics completely outdoes Wii sports and yet you claim that wii sports is the triple a game. If anything it should be S&M that is included, not wii sports. But then again M&S could have been better. The problem you run into is that later on in the lifetime of the console, better games come out, and if you've given wii sports a 92, then what do you give a game like de blob? SMG? conduit?

Haha, why do you always think the wii is a toy? stop trolling or i'll report you. You should know better; Attacking nintendo at a time when even the console owners won't buy good games, shame on you.

yeah i'm gunna change it... I just found an old pic to upload but I need to shoop it first. I have to go to ihop now though.

ha yea sure metacritic and them remove bias.  I don't care how many reviewers you use in your final average it is bias against your so called "casual" games.  It's like asking every person leaving the stadium in the World Series what they think of the show "Desperate Housewives"

The huge majority of the people at the World Series are gonna be big sports buffs and sure you might have a couple wives or something that do like the show, but that will be so small that it won't even matter.  And in statistics it will be outside the range of acceptable values and will be thought of as an anamoly, and thus thrown out.

SO yes having a big group of people all do a survey is supposed to remove bias, but if you are taking that survey from a group that is all biased towards the product in the first place then no it doesn't.  So in this case because the reviewing system is biased and sales are a beter representation.  Tell me a game that has sold a huge amount that was unplayable.  None, no matter how dumb you may think the consumer is they don't buy something that is unplayable.  The word will get out and stop the sales.  And don't say you will find Nintendogs or something unplayable, you just don't like it.  I could come and say I would never buy Killzone 2 because of reasons and all that and you would never accept my decision and say I'm stupid.  Yet rave someone saying that Carnival games is horrible.

I think that is exactly the problem with the HD consoles not the Wii.  Sure we may complain about the ratings our games get, but heck they are probably the best review the game should get and it a good review.  But thought a horrible review cause of every HD game getting 85 or higher minimum just cause it is pretty.

And just like you said should Mario Party 9 get a higher grade cause it is better graphics (slightly) and an improvement on th eolder one slightly.  Has a lot of the same games just a bit different and then many new ones.  But overall same game right?  But wait isn't the Wii one like compeltely different cause of the fact of the wiimote and stuff.  I dont' know, I haven't played it.  But would be safe guess you use it to make the games funner.

Yet now lets look at Gears of War 2.  Or Halo 3.  Now tell me are these games just so much better than the earlier games, or is it just like you said you rated the previous ones so high and that these games have slightly more added or something, BUT MOST IMPORTANT they have better graphics, so then will get a better score.

Heck I"m almost glad the review system is broken.  I am buying a game then for my Wii based of how good the game is and not off graphics at all.  I've bought plenty of very pretty games and found and find myself usually always dissapointed thinking how the hell did this game get a 92.  And also bought plenty of roughly 70-75's and thinking holy shit this game is awesome.

Now do it with AAA first party.