Reread my first post.  It applies to you as well it seems.

It seems to apply more to your self and the author of the review then anyone else.

Stop lying and read the review if you still think its fair and balanced the you just proved my point.

PS. We are not talking about the score but what he wrote.

I think you need to reread the thread more thoroughly, honestly. It's hard to call the reviewer professional when he starts the review off by lamenting that Nintendo should've made an HD console instead. It's also hard to take him seriously when he contradicts himself on several accounts -- Such as the controls sucking, only to turn around and point out that the controls are fully customizable and he was "perfectly happy" with the default controls.

Fact of the matter is, this review is not a good review. I'm not saying that because I'm supposedly insecure over my console choice (why in god's name would I be insecure about having bought a game I have yet to buy anyway?), I'm not saying it because he didn't give the game a 10/10, I'm saying it because the review was not professionally written and was overall a very poor review. In fact, the only part of the review that I have not taken issue with is the scoring.

Do you think I have magical powers and somehow summarized his review mentioning points he made on all four pages without reading it?

It actually makes me think what he would give the game if he actually gave it a chance, considering what he wrote the game got an excellent score.

Maybe we could assume a 4 or a 4.5 if the things he ignored are good?

Speed reading it and actually reading the shit he wrote is not the same thing.

If that is the case you explain to me how this could be a (and i qoute you here) : As a whole it's a fairly decent review that touches on gamemplay, length, controls, and visuals.

When he starts the rewiev with:

I'm not sure who I should blame for The Conduit's shortcomings. Do I blame the developer for making a rather generic shooter with a convoluted storyline that isn't as epic or mysterious as it wants to be or do I blame Nintendo for creating a console whose lack of hardware power essentially handcuffs every developer who tries to create a "next-gen" game for it?

And also says this in the review:

what does it say about the Wii that The Conduit doesn't blow Goldeneye's graphics out of the water the way Halo 3 outshines the original Halo or Killzone 2 completely destroys the original Killzone? 
 

Please explain how in the world the review could be fairly decent whe it starts with those two things on the first page?

Don't EVER convert one scale to another like that - it's simply not working. While 3/5 is probably pretty average to them, to other sites some 70-75/100 is closer to average. If we converted 3/5 to the other scale, it would be more like 60/100. That's just wrong: 3/5 is not bad but 60/100 is. And what about all those 2/5 games? They're probaby much more common than 40/100, which would be equivalent to 2/5 if we converted it like this. Also, I'm sure that 5/5 doesn't equal 100/100. It's just not that simple.

Anyway, back on topic. Sounds pretty much like what I'd expect. IGN's score just felt too high despite me generally trusting them more than most other sites. That said, I'm not sure if this is right either.

First, he said that the Wii's hardware shortcomings are essentially a handicap.  This is one of those "water is wet" obvious type of things that is usually taken for granted.  Fun fact, Wii fanboys are just hyper sensitive to the fact that the Wii is underpowered compared to its competitors and thus react more strongly to mentions of it (much like Sony fanboys and multiplat quality).

Second, he specifically complains about motion controls for throwing grenades and melee combat.  Based on his description, those do sound pretty bad.  I'm not fond of the idea of even shaking the Wiimote in an FPS game because that throws off aim.  I can see how having to do gestures in a game that uses the IR pointer for aiming can quite easily become problematic.

It's ridiculous to point out things in reviews that can't be accomplished. Should I start writing reviews for Xbox 360 games and go "Yeah, too bad they didn't use the Wiimote for this game"? Whatever, leaving that point...

You don't have to use motion controls to do those things. That's the whole point - The controls in this game are fully customizable, you can change the inputs to be exactly what you want them to be. The developers have made it very easy for him to, if he dislikes using motion controls to throw grenades, assign it to a button input. This is not a well-written review and you need to either admit that or leave the thread, because this is just getting ridiculous.

Ha, I wish I could tell the Internets to grow up, and I'm not just talking about the review.