really this is suppose to ADD too the discussion? ...REALLY?

no

lol touche`

I don't get a wow feeling while watching killzone 2, but I still get a wow feeling while playing metroid prime 1. Hmm, graphics mean nothing.

Maybe you should PLAY Killzone 2... And you should get a wow feeling playing MP1, its one of the highest rated games of all time.

I'm with you - could you imagine the reaction to a review of an HD FPS if the reviewer said: the game looks fantastic and controls great *BUT* I wish I could actually point and shoot directly at the enemies instead of scrolling around the screen with a stick. Then dock points for not using a feature that ISN'T EVEN AVAILABLE on that console?

people have to get over that other people LOVE looking at graphics. Fact: graphics do add to the realism of the game which can (in some games) add to the fun.

Some people love graphics that the wii can not provide and in the graphics part of the review it SHOULD get a low score because people can purchase a better game with better graphics on another console.

Why should mario galaxy get the same score  in the graphics side as ratchet is crazy and maskes no sense. HD graphics do help games get higher scores because it takes time to make it look real and you have that wow factor in games like killzone2 , mass effect, ff13, uncharted etc. these games should NOT have the same score as wii games in the graphics part of the review.

A reviewer has to score, and compare the game to what is out there already. if i own killzone 2 then why would i want the next new FPS on wii? thats what the reviews scores are trying to say.

Also all reviewers rate Nintendo games basied anyway so its not just the HD consoles.

I have to go to work so I'll make this short. This is for the OP

1) The first Halo was an innovative game. It created many staples of the console FPS so while it may be generic story wise, it added now heavily used gameplay elements to console FPS games and at the same time saw rise to a massive fanbase because there simply was nothing like it on consoles last generation.

2) There are biased reviews for all systems. That doesn't necessarily mean the reviewer has an axe to grind when a poor review is written. Sometimes they simply don't care and put minimal effort into their review. Find a reviewer/site who you find conforms to your taste and go to them for reviews. Ignore the rest. No game site can be everything to everybody.

3) I have yet to play it, but the conduit looks to be a mediocre FPS from a still unproven developer. Given how many absolute shit to mediocre FPS games there've been this gen, you might be able to see their reluctance in putting together a good review for a game like the conduit.

Reviews are good and everything...but I still don't understand what makes reviewers more qualified to judge a game than your average gamer? A bit of gaming history perhaps...but that's it. These reviews should be taken as loose guidelines...not to live by them. Some reviewers are also clown shoes...and suck at reviewing because all they do is bash the crap out of all the negatives and skim past the positives. A balanced unbiased review should list the positives and negatives in a logical order, and base their decision on that. Also, mentioning another console in a review is unprofessional, and makes them sound like a whiny fanboy.

@ ameratsu )

but.. but.. but.. those reviews can negatively influence the meta-score and without a bigger meta some people can't feel good about games, even if they personally like them, hehe