@ 9Chiba )

"fun" is very subjective - I think especially those low reviews are highly likely to be based on the "fun" the reviewer felt while playing.

^
Thats because they have no souls... In Gerstmann's case, he only has fun while wacking it with one hand and eating frozen cookie dough with the other.

Seriously though, all those reviews are based on the Wii being too graphically inferior/not having as good of an online system as other consoles, the Conduit using N64 level design (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), and the fact that it doesn't push the genre forward or some other pretentious BS.  (I typed that last line while holding my nose closed...)

The complaints about story and controls are just BS as they obviously didn't look into those.  The game is very fun but if you go into something thinking it will suck, it will probably suck.

don't knock it til you try it

Oh I have!  You should try it while trying to juggle a Wii remote between the two while playing Mario Galaxy.

It will make you do this:

@ silentmac)

I only wanted to point out, that rating purely on "fun" (or with "fun" as the by far most dominant factor) is a double edged sword. It can get a game easy "perfect" ratings, but just as easy there can be very low ratings, if the reviewer didn't feel the game.

If there is a balance of "qualities" and "fun" in ratings you usually get a more consistent view and idealy "fun" should be a logical consequence of a games "qualities", which just isn't always the case.

For example I really liked Bladestorm, although the game can't be really rated higher than 5.5 based on it's qualities. On the other hand I was totally bored by Oblivion, which definately has a higher quality standard than many games I liked, but well.. wasn't fun to me.

Oh I get your point, and I agree games shouldn't be critiqued on fun alone. But fun should be a factor IMO or there really is no point in playing games. Also, I doubt fun entered into any of the bad reviews at all. The reviewers knew they wanted to knock this game from the get go because it is a high profile target that they knew would get them attention. Also, because there is alot of sour grapes about the Wii selling so well despite all the shovelware in its library.

In judging quality this title delivers when compared to everything else in the Wii library.  It really doesn't matter if it doesn't stack up to AAA FPS games on other platforms, that doesn't matter because the audience for the game is Wii owner's who like FPS.  Alot of reviewers have made the point that if you own another console that you shouldn't waste your time with the game but that is stupid too.  I own a PS3 and just because I own games like Killzone 2, CoD4, Resistance etc. doesn't mean I wouldn't be interested in a good solid Wii FPS.  Wii FPSs deliver in areas that PS3 ones don't and vice versa.  The gameplay requires an entirely different skill set.

Wii owners are not stupid, i've played the game and i know that it's great, and deserves 8.5 or above

i don't care about reviews but i know a lot of people pay attention to them, therefore a lot of people read shit about Wii games and it's a shame for Wii games to be treated like that

it's not the first time, this happens very often with Wii games

and in my opinion user score is much more valid from people who got the game to enjoy it not forced to buy it, also 0s and 10s are just on IGN and they affect the user score only a little

OMG delusional fanboy at his best. Care to list two reasons why Conduit is better than Resistance? Maybe because it provides almost half as long campaign or maybe thanks to much deeper and bigger multiplayer experience /with no lag/? or maybe thanks to better storyline (Mr. Ford my ass lol)... or broader weapon selection... you can compare your Conduit to Conflict Denied Ops or this crappy area 51 game not to quality soft.

I don't agree that The Conduit's single player is on par with Half Life 2 or Bioshock in any way.  Although if they had made more of what was happening the radio broadcasts/messages with FMV cut scenes I think it actually does have a pretty good/deep story.

But I do see similarities in The Conduit and Resistance honestly.  Resistance's early levels especially were pretty bland and boring (stark buildings with crates to hide behind etc.) but they got pretty awesome toward the end.  Likewise, The Conduit (while not on the same level) starts to show its promise near the end of the game.  The story of Resistance is very predictable and bland whereas the Conduit seems to have a bigger universe and some very interesting twists. Both games have cool weapons, but I have to give it to Insomniac in this area.  They are known for their amazing weapons designs and it shows.  The enemies in both games are about the same and show about the same amount of AI.  Graphically and online wise of course Resistance is better because the PS3 has better tech and a MUCH better online infrastructure.  That said, if I'm going to play an online shooter on PS3 I would much rather it be CoD4 or Killzone 2 than Resistance or even Resistance 2 (although co-op is cool in R2).  But I can see myself putting just as much time into The Conduit online because the controls are extremely fluid and accurate and I really think the Perfect Dark level design makes it feel fresh.  There is more verticality in The Pentagon for example than just about any PS3 shooter I have played.  I will be running along and a dot on my radar is right on top of me but I can't figure out where they are because they are 2 floors below me.  All in all, Resistance is the better game but just barely IMO.  R2, Killzone 2, and CoD 4 are another story though.  That is just crazy talk.

7.4 isn't a bad score. The Conduit is just not a spectacular game as some people would have you believe.