These are the questions that every Wii review should be answering, not questions like, "How much better would this game be on 360, PS3, or PC?" Readers don't want to know that, unless they're reading the review for the express purpose of reaffirming their inner conviction of Wii Inferiority.
What's astonishing, Lindy, is that this only happened once before, when the NES came out. Most computer game magazines railed against the NES and Super Mario Bros. and all that stuff. They either ignored it completely or compared it to their graphically superior commodore 64 or Amiga games, like that was what people were reading computer magazines for.
It's also important to see when this didn't happen, and that's last generation when the PS2 was by far the weakest. Graphical comparisons were verboten unless it was an all-encompassing review of three versions, and even then it was only to find the "superior" version of a game, which didn't fluctuate in score much. Games liek State of Emergency which were ugly as all hell got high scores in graphics because "it's what the the PS2 could do." And don't even say that "all three consoles were similar in power," because they obviously weren't. RE4 on the PS2 seemed to suffer no penalty after it's complete graphical and computational downgrade to the PS2.
Of course nowadays graphics are the only thing that matters, which is quite comical because this might be the last real graphical upgrade we'll ever see. (Nintendo's next may beat out PS3 and 360's gfx tech, if only because such tech is pretty cheap even now.) What's funny about Conduit is that it somehow became a priority to review for some of these press outlets, even those most were cajoling the game beforehand. My favorite was Gamepro's, which had to have been the most tortured review ever to write, because it had to simultaneously praise the game, praise the controls, damn the Wii and it's Wii-mote, praise the graphical design, slam the Wii's graphics, praise the developer, and damn Nintendo, all at the same time.
There just seems to be this feeling like they want Nintendo to fail, and this was reflected all throughout EGM's demise. I mean, put yourself in a new customer's shoes. You just got into games because of Wii. You notice every magazine hates the Wii and you by proxy, whether they say you are a non-gaming grandma (which you either aren't, which makes you angry, or you are, which still makes you angry because they are using you as an insult) or belittle every game the Wii gets, even when it becomes the best-selling fighting game of all time or the best selling driving game of all time (SSBB and Mario Kart Wii). Would you even care what they said about any Wii game after that? Would you care what they thought? Would you even shed a single solitary tear as their magazine goes out of business?
It's almost like the reviewers aren't even talking to you. They are talking to either developers or their own little clique of Wii-haters. And this shows in stunts like what EGM pulled with Endless Ocean. I don't think games market journalism has ever been more tainted since the late-90's where they would essentially buy reviews with lavish trips to Jamaica and stuff.