"However, it also WILL NOT appeal to many people - I would safely say that more people will dislike it than like it. Why? Like we said in the review, it's a very kiddie game - it's target audience is clearly young gamers - I would say 10 and under. For that reason, we had to score it low. Remember, we aren't scoring games strictly on our personal opinions, we're also scoring them based on how much we think THE GAMING PUBLIC will like them."
That doesn't make any f*cking sense. Does Roger Ebert think about how the public will accept a film when he reviews it? No. He uses his own opinion just like every credible movie reviewer. It should be the same for games. If the review is just what the gaming public likes why write a review. The game sales are then a proper way to gauge how "good" a game is.
If we go by what the gaming public will like then:
Madden 2005: 10
Madden 2006: 10
...
Madden 3534: 10
Pikmin 2: 5
Ikaruga: 1
Final Fantasy Anything: 10
Any other RPG: 2
A reviewer is supposed to give his own opinion because he is "supposed" to be well informed and have a good knowledge of games so that he can give an accurate view of a game's quality without allowing public opinion to affect the final review. Everyone knows that in regards to entertainment that just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good and tons of good stuff is completely ignored. The gaming public are ignorant boobs. Those of us who actually read reviews before buying a game want a real opinion. If you're not interested in Paper Mario 2 you're going to ignore the review anyway. Give the game a score that's relevant to those interested in the game.
Plus using the "gaming public" arguement every Cube game is going to get a low score because the gaming public plays mostly PS2.
All this explanation does it show that the review, and thus the entire magazine, is worthless.