Anyway, i wouldn't say this is "next-gen" because it got 9+ ... gears of wars and zelda twilight princess got 9+ by most major publications months ago.
C'mon. It's not about score. It's about cinematic approach to gameplay. Did you even read review summary few posts above?
"Why not 10?
A bit too short - less than 10 hours
Enemies aren't differential enough - only few models
It would be nice to have more bosses
Lack of secrets
Some issues with collision detection"
The first and last ones are HUGE problems for me. And it should be for most people, specially the last one. When the collision detection doesn't works the game can become frustrating pretty easily.
I take 100 times out of 100 a game with a collision detection of 10.0 and graphics of 5.0 over a game with graphics of 10.0 and collisions of 5.0
Besides, this may not be a problem for a lot of people, but personally i wouldn't pay 50 or 60$ for any game that doesn't gives me at least 20+ hours of gameplay... doesn't matters if it is local or multiplayer but i have to get at least 20+ hours to justify my purchase.
Good lord. They gave it a 9 despite those SMALL flaws. It is clearly a great experience.
Gears was short, had no story, doesn't have the best multiplayer experience out of games that were released last winter, and yet had great graphics and good gameplay.
If you don't like the game, then fine, but I am very happy that the game is short because clearly it overcomes that "flaw" (games are too long now, imo) by offering up the best animation to date coupled with a great fighting system and story. That's a great game: story, gameplay, great looking.