they don't make an incentive to play the game more other than raising a score. You unlock stickers which are basically like Achievements, but the game will be the same. Under your idea of replayability any game where some people still play it should be noted as endlessly replayable. There are still people playing just about every game out there, personally I play Skate 2 all the time and before that I played Skate right up until the second came out.

Pfft. Of course IGN will give it a 7. Did you expected anm 8 or 9 from them? and of course they will take it lots of points because it didn't had online. Like soma said Wii sports is still one of the most played games to date WITHOUT ONLINE. OL is cool but not mandatory. Not all games need it. and Nintendo ashamed? HAH! Yeah right!

IGN, GT, 1UP et al doesn't speak for the mainstream players. They speak for the shrinking and annoying Hardkorez players that criticize games that they would never play.

^ I believe the incentive to play the game is to have fun.

admit it , you seriously hate the Wii cause the Ps3 is not selling as much.

It's getting really mixed reviews. It seems like some people are reviewing it for what it is and others for what it could have been.

Its people like you what give Wii fans a bad name.

Just because they didn't give your game a good score, means they are speaking for the "Hardkorez"?

I suppose Super Mario Galaxy's 9.7, or Brawls 9.5, or even Wii Fit's 8... are Harkorez fanboy reviews?

I don't know if Paul is joking or not, but he's right. People play Wii Sports to have fun, either alone or with friends. That's the incentive people have to continue playing those games, and Wii Sports succeeded at that. Online, achievements or other stuff are not needed while the game is good.

You are right, my definition of replayability may be wrong after all. I still play the Ninja Gaiden Nes, because is a lot of fun and is a quick and short game. I like to play my games over and over again, something that is not common nowadays it seems. Maybe the long 50 hrs games make it difficult for people to replay their games, so online and achievements are needed.... but NOT for every game.

What is your definition then, for lasting appeal? How would you grade that?

Going by my definition, my point is, isn't it a bit ridicule to give a 7.5 in replay value to one of the most played games this generation? This just shows me that professional sites seem to review for themselves and not consumers.

I can't say what value score I would give to Wii Sports Resort. I would have to play it first, but when I do it usually I look at how long it took me to play through all the content, what incentives they programmed in for replaying like different difficulty levels, multiplayer options, cost of the game, and what else you get for your dollar like a soundtrack or in this case the WM+ addon. If a game can get away with being infinitely replayable just because it has a top score system then almost every minigame collection would be infinitely replayable.

also, they aren't grading just replayability, it is lasting appeal which should include replayability, how long it takes to play through all the content, and what kind of collectables and unlockables there are.

Ok, thanks, I never understood what Lasting Appeal was, I thought it was just replayability. With that said.... so now the time it takes to finish a game is scored, and the more time the better? If true I don't agree with that. I know a lot of people like their games of 20 hours at least to unlock everything, but for me that's not necessary, if the game is good and fun I will continue playing it even if I unlocked everthing after a few minutes.

For example, TMNT 4 was one of my favorite Snes games and that game was what? 20 min long? But I played if for hours and hours. I can't imagine playing it that much if the game had been 10 hours long or so.

but you can agree that in general getting more gaming for your dollar is better for most people right? There are standards for genres, I don't grade an action game based on the length norms of a JRPG because that would not be fair.

So yes, because of what you said it might be best for you to ignore that part of the score and look at the rest since your tastes go against what would probably be called the norm, but for most people I think an idea of how much gaming you'll get out of a game is a good thing to include in a review.