My problem is the content-score dissonance. The review described a good game, if not quite above average, with good control and gameplay, if a bit flawed. The score reflects a subpar game that is halfway playable at best.
So I think how good the game actually is doesn't matter. The score is more about hating a game for being on the Wii, more than the actual content of this version, or the versions on the other systems.
Note that I'm not disagreeing with the flaws noted in the review. I haven't played this version to judge that. If it turns out the flaws in the review were outright exaggerated, then I can call the whole thing BS. But assuming it's true, my dissonance argument still stands.
This is why I like Angry Joe's reviews (just google the name). Even if I don't agree with his opinions, he makes sure his score reflects what he mentioned in his reviews.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs
