I defiantly see your point but at least it is only one mag vs. every mag.

Never really cared for GamePro anyways. I used to love GameInformer until I started to use the internet and realized that I shouldn't just listen to one mag. Plus RPGs seem to get shafted now and days from GameInformer so I stopped the subscriptions.

On another note I receive GamePro for free and it makes for good bathroom reading material ;)

Well I see it two ways. I see it your way a bit because it was Nintendo's decision to make a Gamecube+ kind of console with the Wii. However, there's a time and place to vent those frustrations, and I feel if a game review is one of them, it should be reserved for a multiplatform game. Want to take a swipe at Wii graphics? Do it in Shawn White Snowboarding, or Tiger Woods, or Madden. Just not the exclusive Wii title. An exclusive Wii title has no comparable HD counterpart. It is only hypothetically better on an HD console since it doesn't exist.

The real issue comes with whether you take this review as a singular offense or as an offense in ideology. Zen is obviously taking this situation ideological as opposed to a singular offense. He's not necessarily wrong though. Would it be right to award all Wii games a 5/10 in graphics because not a single one can come close to Killzone 2? How about PSP? Maybe all games should be capped at 4/10 in graphics? What about DS? Should every game have a 2/10 cap for graphics because all HD titles look monumentously better technically? Even the HD consoles? Should they be capped at 8/10 because the PC can produce Crysis and no console has as of yet? I just don't like the idea of cross platform comparisons in reviews unless 1. It's highly relevant to the review at hand, or 2. it's a multiplatform game. It's not a big deal since it's one offense, but if each game had to be reviewed to it's best potential version on the best potential console, reviews as a whole would just begin to get screwy.

A review is supposed to be a lengthy suggestion to buy a product or a warning not to. So comparing the Conduit to the hypothetical Conduit that could have been on an HD console is not beneficial to the potential purchaser, because that game doesn't exist. It isn't an option to purchase an HD Conduit, thus who gives a shit to mention it? Similiar to how mentioning a lack or keyboard/mouse support or IR pointing support in Killzone 2 is a ridiculous thing to bring up since Killzone 2 is not on the Wii or PC. A reader gets nothing beneficial out of that section of the review.

Probably not.  Although I don't know that there is sufficient proof too indicate that the Wii's power impacted on the final score.

I'd be more concerned with the lack of access to multiplayer.

I didn't say they did :P

@Onyxmeth,

I agree he went too far and from the start he attacked, but it's one review from gamepro, Who cares.

In my humble opinion, anybody who says the control is problematic or say shit about it with The Conduit are seriously just bad at it. watch as I melee without motion control and not even have to target lock once. /shrug

Notice to non-Wii owners.

The reason for all the hubbub about this is this is just the latest in a line of lazy reviews by reputable/semi-reputable sites for Wii games.

It happens all the time to all games -- but usually the ones making those reviews for the PS3 or Xbox 360 are the less-well-known sites (the BS/semi-fanboy sites), not those associated with a real publication.

And it is not the score that drives us nuts -- it is the lack of rationale for that score -- except that it is on the Wii.

To be honest, I have yet to play the game. I got my copy yesterday but my TV blew up and my Wii is currently hooked up to a 19-inch Gold Star made in 1983 (Yes, I have a TV set that works that is older than half the posters in this forum).

Mike from Morgantown

I'll post what I wrote in one of the other threads about this:

This guy has NO CLUE why people are upset.  Opinions are fine, but they need to be defensible.  I could be of the opinion that the earth is flat, but that is in no way defensible.

His assertion that the graphical gap between The Conduit and Goldeneye is less than the gap between Halo 3 and Halo or Killzone 2 and Killzone is not defensible.

His constant insults of the Wii for an exclusive Wii game are in no way defensible.  In the same vein, his praise of the hardware of the 360, PS3, and to a lesser extent PC are out of place in a review for an exclusive Wii game.

At the start of one paragraph, he claims the controls are "terrible" and then in the last sentence of the same paragraph says, "I played with the default and was absolutely happy with it."  It goes without saying that contradictions are not defensible.

He complains about the mapping of two functions to motion controls, without mentioning that you can completely customize all control options.  He could have mapped those functions to buttons.  Leaving that out of the review, or more likely not spending enough time with the game to find the option menu, is not defensible.

Not playing multiplayer of a game made primarily for the multiplayer, is not defensible.

This was easily the worst review I have ever read.

Gamepro? The gaming publication I used to read occasionally in the mid 90's?

They're still around?

This was a poor review, that much can be said.

But it is almost universal amongst gaming publications that the Conduit is not a high quality shooter. It is a decent shooter that is generic and forgetable.