I had a feeling ,perhaps optimistic due to my familiarity with proffessional journalists, that it was in the best interest of the job to pursue information ,news and objectivity.It saddens me to see some ,perhaps non-graduate "journalists" doing a poor job in representing the gaming branch of the tree. True enough, i think its only human to let some of your personal opinion pour into the subjects of coverage. But another is twisting completely the news to fit a false image , or to perpetrate a lie or a urban myth. If we get to specific examples, i think news displayed in gamespot have been very detailed and tainted, and here are the lines that caught my attention: "A bigger disappointment was The Conduit from Sega and High Voltage software. Despite being hyped as a hardcore first-person shooter designed from the ground up for the Wii, the game sold less than 72,000 units on the back of so-so reviews". While it as an standalone statement would make sense, lets check a few lines on the article to see why the writer couldnt hold his bias: "Though the Xbox 360 version of Red Faction: Guerrilla came in ninth place on NPD's non-PC chart with 199,400, the PlayStation 3 version didn't even make the top 20. In fact, the critical hit only sold 67,600 units on Sony's platform" Last time i checked, 72 k was a higher number than 67,600. So how was the Conduit a bigger dissapointment?Or a dissapointment for that matter?Because the Conduit was a big stablished franchise like Red Faction?because it was a low budget product? But wait there is more: "so-so reviews". This should sound fair given that Metacritics average is of 70 or above.But then again theres the line that breaks the argument of fairness: "Last and possibly not least is Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood from Ubisoft and Polish developer Techland. Released on June 30, the critically praised Wild West shooter "..Ok, theres the catch. Call of Juarez has the same average of 70(or lower) than the Conduit at Metacritics or Gamerankings." Critically praised" or "so-so reviews" sounds like a bit too many Mr Thorsen.Make it, Gamespot single review gave this game higher and this one lower, but that was not the consensus just our lone opinions.Of course the odds are that we are gonna give the game lower score if we are going to say the following: "Besides boding ill for High Voltage's other upcoming core Wii games, Gladiator A.D. and The Grinder, the game's poor showing underlined the risks of launching non-mass-market IP on the Wii." wow easy there, you say: Its fine and profitable to debut with 20k units (Call of Juarez) for the PS3, but is terrible to debut with 72k?Didnt Call of Duty World at war broke a Million after selling 45k in the first month?didnt Far Cry 2 for PS3 reach a million after selling in a worse way that the Conduit?Is noteworthy than The Conduit was an indie game, done without a publisher. An indie game sold like the average big budget next gen game.Thats a fact.In fact, no indie game has sold this well on other consoles.Id like an elaborated argument as why does this proves a risk. Gamespot goes out of its way to prove or explain why Juarez sold much worse than the Conduit "While the 44,000-unit total seems low, keep in mind it covers only five days, two of which fell during the long July 4 weekend--when travel, barbecues, and outdoor activities typically take precedence over gaming." It entirely skips the fact that all the hardcore games for the wii market tend to sell better over time than in the first days.At this point in the industry,and with the precedent of Red Steel, Call of Duty and WAW, it should be very obvious how wii third party sell.Even first party(such as Mario Kart).it entirely skips the fact the Conduit charted for 9 days too. So it is apologetic for the good PS3 but is negative for the mean Wii. If the answer i get is: Oh its good sales and is profitable, because there is no competition. Thats moving besides the point. You are admitting right there is profitable and they are making money,hence is not a risky endeavour.I dont care if the game sold fine because there was no competition, my point is proven, the system works. Appealing 50 percent of the market is not nesseary for any game to be a success, to be a proftable endeavour, to be a good idea. When the market is this huge, you can have a safe bet on a genre that isnt fully tapped on the system. Im not an advocate of the wii, im an advocate of better journalism, a more proffessional one, a MORE EDUCATED ONE, for its been the laughing stock of journalists for too long, thanks to people like him. Is tolerable to have fanboys express whatever false images they want, its unnaceptable for spokesmen of the media.