Won't make any difference whatsoever.  When GTA China Town Wars flopped on PSP did you hear those who were attacking the DS sales come out and say they were wrong to blame DS for the poor sales?

sh was really overtracked

I'm not declaring you're supposed to find the game below average, I'm telling you that assuming every review is wrong is assinine.  Reviews in general are a good way to tell if a game is worth spending money on.  You found the game above average instead of below, and some reviewers did as well, but that doesn't mean that all the reviewers that said it was below average are wrong. 

I do trust this site better, but I'm calling that review on the length (the game is short, but it can still be longer), and that the graphics aren't anything to write home about. Those graphics could not be done on the 6th gen systems at that scale. Plus the general art direction is the same as FFXIII (as well as VIII, X, and XII)

Poor credibility is not the same as being wrong.

And if it's a good way, why did they give good reviews to an even shorter game with no replay value?

Are you honestly telling me that I should have compared the graphics of a Wii game to games from the last generation? That makes no sense, I said it was average based on looking at other Wii games. Comparing the Wii to last generation consoles says that the systems are of around the same power. I already know the Wii can do stuff last generation couldn't do, SMG proved that quite soundly.

edit: if you want me to argue against you you're going to need to specify which game you mean that was shorter and got better reviews.

"Are you honestly telling me that I should have compared the graphics of a Wii game to games from the last generation?"

Okay, I didn't mean it that way, but that is how it came across. I'll put it better. The fact is that in terms of overall detail, the game has more than all but a handful of Wii games. Even if you don't subjectively like the style, the objective scale and polish is there.

"edit: if you want me to argue against you you're going to need to specify which game you mean that was shorter and got better reviews."

Madworld. Hearing about those two things turned me off of the game. And if reviewers are supposed to be about buying recommendations (and I do admit that CB is not for everyone), then they failed in their job by gushing over the game in the way they did (and still wondering why the game didn't sell better).

There are different genre standards for length. An action game like Madworld isn't expected to be as long as a game that follows after Zelda like FFCC:CB does.

Madworld was docked for length on most sites, it made up for that with a cool graphical style, amazing music, and a combat system that was interesting even though it got repetitive after a while.

FFCC:CB is docked for length, just average graphics as well as music, and I would call the combat in Madworld better than that in FFCC:CB.

Basically, Madworld made up for its lack of length by having a great presentation and good gameplay. FFCC:CB didn't have enough to make up for the lack of length.

"Madworld was docked for length on most sites, it made up for that with a cool graphical style, amazing music, and a combat system that was interesting even though it got repetitive after a while."

Graphics and presentation trump length? That is part of the problem with both the reviewers and why the game didn't sell better.

I'll give Crystal Bears could have been longer, but just because you tore through the game doesn't mean it's actually just 9 hours.

Quite the opposite, from the article it looks like SH2 sold more than a million, possibly 2 million. It sold 750k pretty damn fast, so no, SM won't be the best selling ever. However, compared to the failure that was homecoming, the SM failure doesnt look as bad.