I think this is indeed something worth considering.
I personally think that a large part of the problem is, in truth, reviews on a whole are slightly antiquated because it's much harder to change the goalposts with a videogame review than it is with a film or music review. I mean, at the end of the day it's still whether we like the product or not, but music is judged on sound composition along with that, films are judged on technical merit as well as preference, while games are judged on the above but via changing standards of interface, eg the control method, which is the most important factor for any game. And as such we judge a game based on prior experiences (which to be fair, is the only thing we can do) rather than coming to it more 'fresh-faced', so to speak. A new control interface poses a different gaming experience to that which came before it, and as such is more difficult to judge on its own merits because a typical review system is designed with just that in mind a singular set of scores over a straight line of quality.
I think it's even worse when sites use weighted averages, because it throws the whole system out of whack in the process. Not only Wii, but X360 and PS3 have highlighted a large problem with the whole way we review games based on scores, because we're so used to substantial steps upward in presentation. Wii makes smaller steps that the other machines, but even the other machines were harshly judged because they didnt meet some imaginary standard bar of what constitutes as 'next gen'. And as readers we often judge scores in a singular fashion too when an '8' for one format could mean a totally different score had it been on another system, yet remains moot if that is the case. It's all pretty messed up and confusing, made worse when we declare something as "fun", because it's an immeasurable thing someone's version of fun may be another's version of a trip to the dentist.
In many cases, a new console suffers 'artificial' scores in its opening reviews in a way, and are rarely deemed fair one year later. Some mags/sites overrate the first gen games on a system because they flash and show off, even though they may not offer much more in the way of new experiences. There was a very conscious effort within the games industry to not do that with Wii games, and because it's not as powerful a machine, there's been (in my opinion) an opposite effect where scores have perhaps been a little too harsh to readdress the balance (same with some PS3 game scores I think, too). This is as potentially damaging as overrating something, I personally think, as it becomes much harder to judge a review because the reviewer him/herself is already working off preconceived notions of what's an 'overrating' and what's an 'underrating' and just ends up firing straight down the middle ground which is often safer than sticking your neck out.
One thing which is interesting to think about given that prior examples of first gen console games being overrated through graphical/aural improvements, would many of the first gen Wii games got better scores if they had the sort of presentational flourish 306 and PS3 games have? Irregardless of a new and excellent control method? I would think so; which beggars the question are we just big ol graphic and sound whores who prefer the same thing just 'better' instead of something that offers 'new' over presentational increments? Sure, it would be nice to have it all, but are we just asking for too much? Perverts notwithstanding
I just think we should do away with scores altogether. Especially now we can play older games (which by no means should be reviewed by current standards because again, it becomes a misinterpretation of a quality at the time)