Here the conclusion of RPGFans review of Odin Sphere which they gave a 91:

"To sum up, never have I seen a game so visually pleasing. If you look past the heavy repetition, Odin Sphere is a fun game with solid concepts, along with a great musical score and interesting plot."

Sounds like they could have said the same regarding muramasa...

Its getting worse or just simply more obvious as more and more good games are released.

I dk what to say anymore, FUCK THEM. Saying a Wii game is too hard (a common complaint about Muru. and other great Wii games) is a flat out admission of hypocracy and subversion regarding all Wii games. They are actually judging the game as if they represent the casual gamer and are fully convinced that only inexperienced players would ever touch the game.

They are deluded.

^Actually, the reviewer laments that the game is too easy. But I suppose that it's just as bad because it falls in line with tagging all Wii game casuals "just because" :)

Anyway, can anyone who has played both enlighten me on how this game compares to Odin's sphere? Is it more streamlined/simplified? Is it more linear? Has it even less RPG elements?
In other words, for someone like me who liked Odin's sphere - repetitive as it could get - should I safely ignore what reviews like this put their spotlight on, or is it actually worse than the former game in its issues?

Oh great another point to why I shouldn't use RPGfan, with this I think RPGfan can be as bad as RPGgamer. Actually I think I give RPGgamer to much bad credibility, maybe they aren't so bad.

This thread is awesome just for the debate on what a fact is.

One other note, since people keep tossing out religion: Each religion is based on faith. There's no need for faith if your religion is a fact.

And to whoever it was that posted about people needing to take a class in criticism, right on! Video game criticism has pretty well always been a joke, but the last 12-15 years have seen it completely erode.

Oh no, I understand it perfectly. I did neglect to explain myself properly though.

The whole point I was trying to make is that the reviewers are this way because it sells. The majority of the demographic is gamers, and as such the demographic likes to read and listen to people who use the right diction, know lots of games, and know how to play well enough to represent the typical ability of the demographic.

It sells, ya know?

But, honestly, wii owners reaaaally loathe zero punctuation, and he's a serious critic.

Except it doesn't sell... it's all based on advertising now... as videogame print media... which was based on actually selling has died out.  Why has it died out?  Because with the internet... only quality will sell now.  Since people can go anywhere for fanboyism.  Which is what the internet websites are... fanboy depots.

Also anyone who told you Yatzhee is a serious critic is insane.

You can send him an email yourself he'll tell you he's not a serious critic.

Serious critic doesn't = willing to be harsh about shit people will like.

Yatzhee is a proffesional nitpicker.  He'd tell you as much.  He nitpicks games to death based on funny gimics... and he also reviews games based on his own ideas about what a game should be.

The difference is that he's a games producer.  He made his own mini adventure games for years so he looks at it from a different angle then the general public.

Infact, i'm pretty sure the "I'm not a critic i'm a professional nit picker" is an actual quote from something of his.

I didn't mean that magazines sell per se, but that those kind of sites generate a lot of traffic.

I dunno, I guess you're right. It's just that it seems like people have a problem with every reviewer, at least Nintendo fans do. Can it really be that so many reviewers are wrong? I personally don't read reviews just because I know which games I want and can try any game I want at a friends house, so I really don't know the kinds of things they talk or complain about. Seems a lot of reviewers complain about games which force motion into games that really don't need it, and complain about the motion or lack of features.
I personally agree with a lot of these things, so for me...in my point of view, the reviewers can't be that wrong.

This is a strange argument to be in because everyone has had that game that they enjoy which didn't receive the same love from critics. And, a lot of people hated GTA4. I do agree that it seems like he took some cheap shots at the wii near the end, but maybe he meant it more in the way of, "some of the negatives of this game are of similar negatives to a lot of wii games". I mean, you can only say "the motion control is forced" in so many ways right? :P

EDIT: that last part was just an example. I know he wasn't talking about moco.

Fact? The Wii being a casual system? 

LOL, I would be interested how would you prove such a "fact".