This table is garbage.

Anyone who remembers the bird levels from Galaxy 2 knows that the controls are far from "flawlessly executed."

Unless it's Rayman Origins!

No they just like the art direction of that game.

Que va! Are you accusing reviewers of generally being shallow and superficial?!

Or an indie game, or LBP, or DKCR, or Kirby, or...

Actually, I'm thinking the reason critics are harder on New Super 2 is because there are more games of the same genre to compare it to. Galaxy came out in '07; Galaxy 2 in '10. How many noteworthy, revolutionary 3D platformers were made between those two games? Eh... how many 3D platformers at all were made between them?

NSMB came out in '06, New Super 2 in '12. Twice as long between games. 2D platformers are a dime a dozen this generation, so they have to prove that they're REALLY spectacular to stand out, to warrant much praise. There were plenty of 2D platformers in the past 6 years that added to the genre, expanding on an old formula. For New Super 2 to come out and pretend none of that innovation took place, like it's still 2006, was... a mistake. At least, apparently, in the eyes of the average critic.

The 3D platformer genre hasn't experienced massive change since Mario Galaxy in '07. The FPS genre hasn't changed much since Halo or COD4. But 2D platformers have come a long way since 2006. Maybe it's not "fair" to grade games on that kind of scale for one genre only, especially since New Super 2 is such a high-quality game in its own right, old-fashioned or not. But I imagine there would be a similar lashback if someone released an extremely dated FPS..... (*cough*, DNF). Now, sure, DNF was a plain-old bad game when you got right down to it. But one major criticism of it that cropped up frequently was that it ignored so much of the evolution of the genre in the past decade.

Maybe it's still a bit of a double-standard. Maybe it's still a lot of a double-standard. Maybe it only looks like a double-standard on the surface, but is pretty consistent when you look closely. Maybe I'm not going to commit to a clear opinion of my own, because (maybe) I don't really care. :P

nope, I'm saying that Rayman Origins' art is worth more than more NSMB Gameplay 

Reviewers tend to be more hostile towards stronger selling Nintendo games, while praising the games that have bomb and have no hope of selling and like malstrom, I feel it is no coincidence. I think a lot of reviewers prefer to see Nintendo kept down for whatever reason. Or perhaps they just want to seem cool or 'hardcore' by praising the niche games while dissing the popular ones.

But at the same time, this does look to me like one of the weaker 2d Mario games. The whole coin collecting focus seems like a gimmick, just doesn't do it for me. I like the thrill of dodging enemies and kicking ass in Mario games. The coin collecting I feel should be secondary. The worlds also look bland and recycled. It looks pretty fun I guess, but not enough to buy a 3ds for. Nsmb u looks far superior.

It's because:

Super Mario Bros
Super Mario Bros 2
Super Mario Bros 3
Super Mario World
Super Mario Land
Super Mario Land 2
New Super Mario Bros
New Super Mario Bros Wii

Do reviewers really care much for LBP? I thought the reviewer consensus on that one was largely indifference, at least as a platformer. I don't think Kirby was particularly shined on either, at least not for anything beyond its art style. I admit, my perception could be wrong though.

As for the indie games, most of those are artsy puzzle games wrapped in a veneer of a platformer. I know it may sound like I'm nitpicking, but I'm inclined to think reviewers are more in love with the fact that those are indie games than anything else.

I see where you're coming from regarding how 2D platformers are more common now than 3D ones (although I'd hardly label them as "a dime a dozen," especially when the bulk of them are more puzzle than platformer). But I don't put as much weight in that, since other games in crowded genres continue to get high plaudits. This generation has been saturated with shooters, WRPGs, brawlers, and sandbox games, yet this doesn't stop reviewers from slapping 90+ scores on Uncharted/Gears/God/Assasin's/Mass Effect/whatever 3+. Perhaps the evolutions within those titles elude me, since I admit I'm not a huge fan of those genres,* but the changes between UC 1 to 3, or Gears 1 to 3, for example, don't strike me as anything more than minor tweaks.

Perhaps you've got your finger on the pulse more than I do, though. Maybe reviewers really do place greater value on the recent 2D platformers than I (and likely most of the general public) do. It certainly wouldn't surprise me too much, in light of how IGN let an editor run a peice that claimed Splosion Man was a better game than NSMBWii!

*Actually, I like WRPGs. But this generation's offerings pale compared to the late 90's/early 00's, imo. That's a rant for another time.

All exceptional indeed!

Well, the first New Super Mario Bros blew, and World can suck it. But the rest are fun!

You're wrong on both of those counts.

Anyways, the point is that it's not just the third in a series, but more like the ninth. It's the ninth time pretty much having the same thing with small upgrades each time.