Yoink!

The short gameplay time is symptomatic of the game itself, not specifically the Wii version.

The game was tepidly received on all platforms, but reviewers liked the Wii controls. Black Zarak got the 360 version and he thoroughly enjoyed it, so I am 100% confident that I will enjoy the game. Besides, reviewers are jaded assholes. If you have a review ready of a game before it comes out, you probably only played it for one - three days. Ideally, if you're going to do a serious review of a game, you should play it for somewhere between 7 - 14 days, and during that time period, it should be the ONLY game you play. Professional reviews don't do this. They're given a stack of games, and they have to crank out like 20 - 50 reviews in a month. They're jaded assholes, and the only games that get high scores are the high profile ones that are expected to get high scores. A professional reviewer already knows before he does a Mario Galaxy review that he's going to give it somewhere in the 92-100% range because it's a top tier title. Meanwhile Mario Sluggers is going to get 60% if the reviewer is having a really bad day, 80% if the reviewer somehow got laid last night, and somewhere in 65% - 75% range if the reviewer is having an average day.

When I want honest opinions of a game, I check user reviews on site like GameFAQs. I find them to be intrinsically better for a number of reasons. First of all, the person reviewing the game actually bought it. No one sent it to them and forced them to play it; it was a title that they were interested in and purchased of their own volition. Second, the person has nothing to gain from their review; they're doing it because they feel like it, and there's no deadline for them to meet. Third, I'm on the same page as the reviewer. We both saw this game and thought, hey that looks cool. The difference is, that person has already bought it. So that person is going to tell me the types of criticisms that interest me. They're going to tell me if the game's flaws completely ruin a game that both of us want to be good.

I'm not saying that game reviewers should have to pay for games, I'm just saying that when a guy is given a stack of unsolicited games by his editor and told to have reviews ready before they go on sale to the general public, well there's no guarantee that that guy has any interest whatsoever in the game he's reviewing.

When I read a review of Castle of Shikigami III, I want a review written by someone actually likes shmups, not some douchebag who's going to wonder out loud at several points during his review why someone is still making them, then give it a 55% because it's not Halo.There should be a bigger effort within the professional review community to give games to people who actually want to play them. I want to read a Sonic Unleashed review by someone who actually likes Sonic, not someone who's convinced that Sonic 2 was the last playable Sonic game. And sites like IGN make no effort to do so. It's irritating and irresponsible.