Not even this post? 

The reason we think that WoG getting the award is a result of IGN's disrespect and not the game's merits is that it wasn't even on the RADAR for best PC game, when there are games for the Wii that are better than games on the PC finalist list.  If WoG had been a nominee on the PC as well, we wouldn't be having this discussion. 

As for Galaxy getting 2007 GotY, WiiWare wasn't around until 2008.  There was no alternative to the standard Wii games; I've explained the pschology I believe influenced IGN's thinking, though it's obviously debatable.  Plus, come on -- I mean, it was GALAXY.

Hmm at first I would be likely to wonder if this was a barb of some kind. Although, I haven't played the game, and it seems a lot of the more celebrated titles (at least that I own) are from 2007. So it may be actually a sagely choice, especially considering the noted factors of price and innovation (I agree with the idea that Brawl = Melee 2.0 or Melle+, whatever).

If I get Wii Points for Christmas than I'll have to look into this, but I've got some VC games to get first. METAL SLUG baby!!

Bought the game yesterday after reading this. I've played it for about 30 minutes. Now I know that isn't long enough to judge a game, but so far I don't think it fits the "Goty" title. For a wiiware game, and a wii game overall I'm impressed though. Can anybody give a reason why they think this deserves Goty?

hmmm. Interesting. good post sc.

I wonder how people would react if Wii Music was GOTY?

OT: *shakes head*
I'm going back to Mario Kart, Wii Music, And Super Smash, the TRUE GOTY's.

^ I would expect disbelief from the Wii camp that reviewers had such a change of heart ...

and massive explosions, especially of heads, from the "hardcore" camps.

No, I am not saying that they should give a blockbuster game the GOTY title simply to give the game good press.  But they chose blockbuster games for both the PS3 & 360, but for the "casual" Wii, they pick a little played or known game.  I'm sorry, but the LARGE majority of Wii owners wouldn't call their declared "winner" the Game of the Year.

I think it's just the writer saying that the Wii sucks so bad, they have to give the award to a little known or played game... it's the industries' dislike for the Wii because of poor 3rd party support and in all reality, the best games are 1st party.  I think IGN is a little to closely aligned with 3rd party software companies that maybe have a bias against the Wii because of this.

Who really knows...?  It's just speculation.

But, if IGN were to give XBOX 360 Game of the Year honors to Bomberman: Act Zero, you'd hear 360 fans crying fowl as well... I don't care if IGN thought that it was the best game of the year for that console.  The people, the fans who play the games, don't agree.  It just seems like arrogance when a site declares a game a winner of an award despite the fact that they are in the small minority of people who think so.  It really looks as if they are saying, "F' you readers, we are in charge, and we'll declare whomever we want to be the winner whether you like it or not... we are the mighty IGN".

I really hate that site, their reviews and game ratings suck anyway.

WoG is a great original game, not sure why it doesn't deserve an award or two.

It will get more exposure this way and be more succesfull sales wise, let it shine for a while.

 You know they have reader voted awards too, right? Why would they give out awards based on their perception of what the readers expect, and then a second set of awards for what the readers actually voted for? The oscars don't go based on who they think people like the most, or what movie got the most hype/coverage/movie ticket sales. Being a blockbuster doesn't mean much in the eyes of a critic, and that's what they are being asked to do for an awards show, or article or whatever. It's not fan service, they aren't there to give the majority what they want.

So, I downloaded the demo for this on my pc and its pretty fun. For $15 on WW I think I will have to pick it up.