10

I understand how some say that it didnt catch the first's glory.. but for a sequel i don't think it could've been done any better. It's a much more complete game than SMG and i had a blast playing the game. That said the flux of platformers that the Wii saw is the only reason i didn't play it twice like i have with SMG (Luigi wise). On its own though i truly believe it is the best platformer ever and gave 3D platformers a new standard that should be compared too. In other words SMG 2 is on a league of its own (bar SMG 1) which says alot. 

I know you've done this as a joke, but the fact that you quite openly claim to not have a Wii (same applies to dsage01. Mario games are kiddish. I wouldn't want it to be anything else), it makes it very difficult to believe that you could have played the game for a long enough period to gain the most enjoyment out of it

So I really doubt that's your honest opinion. So STOP DELIBERATELY DRAGGING DOWN THE SCORE!  Also, I've done all the figures and analysis of the values, to find out how, statistically, it would go down. I can post my results if you'd like.

A good new rule would be that everyone who wants to post a score has to have the game in their collection before the start of the thread.

You'll note I only post scores in threads of games I actually own, hell, I don't even open the thread if it's a game I've not played. But I guess it's just too much to ask people to be honest...

Gosh, this ranking stuff got way more complicated than it should be. >_>

Not defending SMG2, since I haven't played it, but I do think that extreme scores should need lots of extra explanation. The Ranking game is using the "7 is average"-scale so putting a 4 or 5 score on a game would mean that the game is way below average. When titles like Super Mario Galaxy, Halo or Uncharted gets a 5 (or worse ) I  do scratch my head because even though the game wasn't your cup of tea you'd have to push yourself to the limit to find so many flaws that it would bring down the score that much.

If people are voting down games than that's just pathetic and extremely immature, and I'd say the same about those voting games up.

Just my few painted pebbles.

I agree with what both you guys say. But it is confusing.

It just strikes me that, a Nintendo game was being thretened to become the highest ranked game in this competition, so people came in and deliberately sabotaged the score. That's what I see. Because 5ish for what is ranked the best game ever by many (and not a single critic review below 9.0), it strikes me as strange that, even if you hate it, you can score it below 8, 7.5 at the very least... some of the arguments are weak at best. But enough of that, It's getting out of hand.

I'd say 9.5, better than the first one, but still I would have liked a little more difficult game...yes the last part of the game was hard enough, but the rest it's still on the easy side imo.

Does a game start at 10 and then gets lowered, or does it start at 5 and then gets raised? 

KylieDog could think of enough positive things to raise the score from 5 to 8.

But can people think of enough negative things to lower it from 10 to 5.4? 

Like I said, not a single critic review is below 90%. Undercutting that by over 30% because of 'no story' and 'no HD' is criminal. Take it for what it is. Don't compare it to HD games and you'll be fine. Otherwise all games released pre-this gen would score around 4 because of 'poor graphics!' or 'no online!' etc.

The majority of games in these ranking threads end up below their Metacritic if you'd just take a look at the full list.

I know that. Because people have time to reflect.

But, I find it hard to believe someone thinks it's 33% worse than the lowest review score on Metacritic, and also around 15-20% lower than any other review