The thing is that Carnival Games was bashed because of its content, not whether it was any good at what it was supposed to do. As in it didn't matter if it was a good simulation of those games. They didn't like the simulation period.

Now even if Extraction is good at what its supposed to do, the "guided first person experience" likely just isn't that appealing to gamers, even HD ones.

And I say that critics liked it more because it achieved the "cinimatic" experience they think games are supposed to have, rather than many gamers who actually want to play them.

Let me ask this. Why the hell you did not attack him stating mario&sonic at the olympics being a quality game? Is it because you happen to share his taste in gaming?

Of course people can objectively judge the quality of a game. My definition of quality has nothing to do with my personal taste about games. I can think that a game is a turd but if I see that there has been a lot of effort I will acknowledge the quality of the game. However, no matter how polished that turd is... it is still a turd. A quality turd.

Generalizing will always make you wrong. How do you explain the good reviews for Lumines, Mario Kart, Mario games period, Forza, Gran Turismo or most racing games or maybe all puzzle games and whatnot? It's just that you can't accept that Mario Kart is not the best racing game out there because if it's from Nintendo it's gotta be the best. At least that's what fanboys think. Every review is subjective.

What about Lego Star Wars is missing from your definition of quality?

I own the game for 360. It just has that cheap feeling all around it. Bad graphics, some annoying glitches especially playing co-op and camera did not feel right.

I thought it was ok, but it was mainly because of Star Wars. If this game wasn't a license game and some new IP it would have gotten much less attention and reviews would probably be lower.

You didn't seem to get my point. I wasn't generalizing reviews. I was referring just to those two games. Those other games aren't relevant to my comment. Could you read it again, just in the context of those two games?

Oh, so you judge the quality of a Wii game based on the 360 version???  Anyways the controls are great in the Wii version, would be less fun with a 360 and I can't imagine the graphics being any better on the 360.

I never liked SE, but that's beside the point.  Too many third parties do a half assed job on their "hardcore" titles when it comes to the Wii.  It's no wonder third parties are having a tough time.  Lets look at the Crystal Bearers for example.  It's an RPG lite (and that's being generous) that's not even a part of their main franchise.  SE has never been known for action adventure games and customers aren't going to be seeking titles in this genre from this developer.  They have to establish this title which is going to be tough since many people look down on spin offs from successful franchises, and the Chrystal Chronicals doesn't have the greatest of reputations to begin with.  There's two black marks already.  At least make it an RPG (the Wii already has some great action adventure games but is completely lacking in the RPG realm).  We can also look at WaW, which sold over a million because it was at least comparable to the 360 and PS3 version, even though it wasn't the complete game and what was included could have been much better.  At least it looked like they made an honest effort though and they were rewarded for it.  If the next CoD comes out when it's supposed to and is the full product with a grade A effort, it will do much better.

Third parties need to stop overthinking their strategy on the Wii and just produce the same games they are putting on other systmes (with the obvious graphical difference).  It's that simple.  Overthinking leads to crappy products.

@Lord you mentioned that they gave Dead Space better scores because it was cinematic. I gave you a list of highly reviewed games that aren't cinematic which would prove your point wrong. Carnival Games wasn't meant to be cinematic, neither was Mario or LBP or Forza.

You make it sound like reviewers are this disconnected people who live in fantasy land and aren't just gamers. They don't think every game should be cinematic or those games wouldn't get high review scores.

You also said it was judged by its contents and not by how well it did what it was meant to do. If you are only going to judge games by how well they simulate something that's not a full review, other factors should be taken into consideration: quality, fun, originality and so on.