Pretty much expected. Nintendo Land looks pretty lame and the 2D Mario games have always received less than favorable reviews from the biased mainstream gaming media that prefers shiny 3D graphics and blood and guts.

I think there is nothing in ZombiU that couldn't be done on PS360 graphics wise and I think critics of the nintendo hating sort will emphasize this into oblivion. I have no problem with the graphics personally but it isn't spectacular or anything.

Damn straight they need wiggle room as we know the real core games will be better and they need a bench mark to beat.

I will give you a similar example where the 10 point scale system kind of failed as no wiggle room was left.

There was a cook off at my school in my cookiing class (many years ago now lol) to try and win points towards your house (school had 4 houses different colour and scores where based on academics and sport). The problem was after each dish they scored out of 10. So when the teachers tasted the first students, it was pretty damn good and gave them a 10 as it was close to the teachers and they were nto expecting better

Then the second students dish was tasted and it was significantly better they did something stupid and gave them 11/10 a bonus for making it taste the same and slightly better in bits.

To me it would have made more sense to ttaste both then judge them accordingly.

To keep things in perspective...

IIRC, I have the exact numbers somewhere, the X-Box 360 had about 6-7 games that scored 8/10 or above on Gamerankings, none above a 9. COD 2, King Kong, Need for Speed, Perfect Dark, Kameo, and I think Condemned scored above an 8.0. There was one other, but I can't recall...

For the PS3 there were, I think, one or two games to score above an 8.0. Resistance is the only one that I'm 100% on. I think COD 3 scored above 8 as well. That's about it.

As for the Wii, I think it was 3. Zelda scored above a 8, Madden was above an 8, and I believe Trauma Center was 8+ as well.

I'm working on an article about launches, and I have the figures somewhere, but when someone calls an 8.5 on a launch game "decent" that's kind of silly.

Of the last three console launches, only 1 game scored above a 9 on average. That was Twilight Princess, and that wasn't even really a launch game. COD 2 for X-Box came close. It was somewhere around 88-89 on Gamerankings. All in all, average review scores for 360 launch titles was 7.5ish and the average for the PS3 was 6.9ish and Wii was 6-7ish.

TL:DR Version is that launch titles generally suck. If the Wii U's first two launch titles are in the 8/10 range, that's a great start. Wii U's launch lineup has the potential to be, on paper, the best launch of all time. Of course, there is more to a console launch than aggregate review scores...

FFFFUUUUU!

I don't care about Halo 4, but I predicted 90% for the game and was spot on, but this review alone pulled the overall score down to 87 and now I get no points....I hereby request for this review to be disqualified for obvious bullshit and fucking me over big time.

Sounds hype.

Also I agree with everyone that you're being silly, these are great scores.

apperantly a lot of the most popular games and ones with high budgets like max payne (87 metacritic) battlefield (85 on ps3) and AC3 (85) are just mediocre and not worth playing 

LOL

Same thing happened to me. I had 91%. I'm still holding out on some more positive reviews to push the score higher so I look like a genius :)

Also, what is going on with 80s and 85s being considered average or mediocre scores? This is like being in an episode of The Twilight Zone. Maybe video game reviewers should just switch to a four-star system, like many movie critics use.

**** GREAT
*** 1/2 SUPERIOR
*** GOOD
** 1/2 AVERAGE
** POOR
* 1/2 BAD
etc.

If those Nintendoland reviews are the start of a trend then I was probably wrong about equating the immediate reaction to its very existence to that of Wii Music...

Today I learned that I can read German somewhat without hardly any prior knowledge.