And it wasn't but it's beating a dead horse and I'm rather tired of doing so, though it'll pop up time and again I'm done with it.

You are right, that 6 hours probably includes the other additional modes that were added.  If you read the reviews I posted, that's where I got 6 hours from.  Whatever the time, I thought it was interesting playing as her.

Being that people argue how much more powerful the XBox 360 or PS3 are based on minute details that are only visible when you zoom in, I don’t think that it is all that unfair to say that fairly large noticeable improvements that are clear on a heavily compressed youtube video counts as being a wide margin.

Beyond this, at what point did I argue that the PS2 version was worse because of the visuals?

Well, I don't argue over minute details between 360 and PS3 games, and I really do not see any "wide margin" of difference between the 2 versions of RE4. The very idea of posting a graphical comparison as if it's a big difference in comparison to the GC version not having a significant amount of extra content is implying that there can be a debate as to which version is better.

If you are a graphics whore, and prefer what is to you a wide margin of difference, then I suppose there's an argument. Otherwise, I was correct all along in saying that the PS2 version of RE4 was better than the GC version because it had more content.

The whole point that keeps getting left out when you guys quote me is that the Wii has a relatively low amount of exclusives that are rated 90% or higher. That is my reasoning for not expecting many to follow since half of those rated 90% or higher are ports anyway. There are very few original Wii games that are rated highly.

All the games coming out this month seem to have little to no reviews, indicating the terrible trend for Wii games is going to continue this month. I hope this Mad World game everyone keeps hyping up turns out to be good, because it's not been pretty lately, imo.

For the record, most of the Wii games I've enjoyed are in the 80-90% range, so I'm not saying there isn't fun to be had and that a game has to be 90% to be great. It's just 1 of the signs that the Wii is underperforming when it comes to software so far. I think there would be a similar result if you compare 80-90% games from the 3 consoles.

You’re also not taking into consideration that there is a noticeable bias in reviewers that means that "90% or higher" games tend come from a couple of genres, and tend to be the kinds of games that took 2 to 3 years to develop on the PS2/Gamecube/XBox and can take 4 to 5 years to develop on the PS3/XBox 360. Being that few publishers thought the Wii was going to be successful, and the concept of the Wii being the dominant console was so unexpected it made a good April fools joke, the kinds of projects that would typically receive scores of "90% or higher" were (certainly) not started before the Wii launched and were probably not considered until (about) a year ago.

Whether you are ready to accept it or not, at least some of the large publishers looked at the rapidly growing user base of the Wii and decided to put some of these larger-budget games on the Wii; after all, with the low development costs and large user base the risk is fairly minimal on developing/financing these kinds of games. We’re already seeing the result of this shift with games like Dragon Quest X, Mad World, Spyborgs, and The Conduit, along with several other titles people could list off. Will all of these games end up being critically acclaimed? Probably not, in fact most will probably end up with pretty average reviews; but that’s typical of HD games as well.

Will this new found interest in bigger budget games on the Wii be a one time thing? Once again, probably not. CEOs of large publishers can no longer excuse their record revenues and record losses on not anticipating the popularity of the Wii; while last year shareholders would accept the promise of further support for the Wii, from now on they will be expected to be showing how they plan to capture sales on the Wii. Companies who are unwilling to back up their previous promises with actual projects which bring results will face the wrath of their shareholders, and many CEOs will lose their job or face legal action.

you heard it there first guys, KZ2 will be terrible despite reviews.

Huh? Red Steel is at 63% on metacritic.

I don't really buy into the reviewers being so biased that it effects the Wii so much.  For one thing, as I pointed out, the PS2 has God of War 2 and Persona 4 (Persona 3 FES just missing at 89%) during that same time period.  I think quality games are recognized no matter the console.

I do believe that your premise that publishers are shifting to the Wii is plausible.  I don't think the shift will make the Wii's lineup anywhere close to the PS2's level, however.  But, we'll see how the games turn out.

You're claiming that Red Steel 2 will be bad because Red Steel was bad ... Since Killzone 1 was bad what does this tell us about Killzone 2?

Ah, I see the comparison. First of all, the notion that you should doubt a mediocre-to-bad game's sequel is valid. I wasn't convinced Killzone 2 would be good until I played the beta.

That said, there are some slight differences between those 2 series: Killzone 1 is a little better at 70%, and Killzone: Liberation, also developed by GG, is at 77%. GG was also bought by Sony and Sony tends to put out quality first/second party games (similar to Nintendo). They received help from several developers that work with Sony.  The expectations were raised because of that.