I see a 7.8 as a good thing. To me without playing it I could feel high 7's - low 8's. Only true reviewer to your taste is yourself.. so go rent the game and see if it lives to your expectations.

To build upon what Rol said, there are some reviewers who mark down games if they aren't HD or wide screen.

Since the Wii games are not HD or wide screeen by definition, Wii games often start with a one-point deduction compared to those of PS3 and 360.

An interesting project would be to analyze scores to see if there is a bias for or against any console by any magazine/site/show.

Any volunteers?

Mike from Morgantown

PS -- I feel that sometimes scores get mistreated in the upconvert. Three stars on X-Play (which has gone downhill since in trying to be a news show instead of a subversive review show, IMHO) is more like 70%-75% but gets coverted to 60% (three-fifths). Four stars is more like 85%-90% but gets converted to 80% (four-fifths). Any system not based upon 100 (or 10 with tenths) leads to distorted scores on meta-review sites.

Someone better tell my Wii games that they're not widescreen, because I have a lot of widescreen Wii games.  Some of my DVDs are also widescreen -- 720x480, just like the Wii games.

Xplay just gave it a 5/5.

IGN...not exactly the most respected site on the internet, for reviews, that is. They tend to be all over the place.

That said, the IGN score is by far the lowest so far. 5/5 from Xplay, 9889(I believe) from Famitsu, 9 from Edge magazine, 4.5/5 from Gamepro(and game of the month).

86.8 average so far. 

Basically, all these guys have said it is one of the best games on the Wii.

I don't understand how anyone could not buy this game, based on a critical opinion, when it is so overwhelmingly positive.

Even the IGN review was overwhelmingly positive, only pointing out the overworld game as a weakness. Even then, it's basically an 8/10, which translates to 4/5 stars, which is better than the average, and indeed one of the best 3rd party Wii games available.

Now add to that the fact that you might be a Suda fanboy like myself, and you have your favorite game this gen, lol. 

^ X-Play isn't exactly the place to go for reviews. They will talk about a game like a dog, but still give it a 5/5 (Halo 3 single player). Then, they will praise a game to the heavens and give it a 4/5 (Burnout Paradise, and a host of others). I place ign above all places for reviews. Edge gives out high scores all the time, and gamepro is a joke. And when you are grading out of ten, anything seven and below is bad. You can see they only use six and below to describe truly horrible games, average games don't get sixes, they get seven point fives. a 7.8 translates to a 3/5 in terms of stars.

gamespot gave nmh a 9.0 this game will be amazing

Are you kidding? IGN is by far the biggest and most popular review site. Their ungodly traffic should be enough for you to know that.

High traffic is not always a sign of quality in a website.  For example, what other sites get a lot of traffic that you wouldn't consider high quality?

Gamespot! Oh... wait... >_>

Seriously though IGN's traffic comes from more than just their game reviews, so that's not really a fair situation.  In a related story, Gamespot just gave it a 9. o_O

IGN gets the lowball score on this game it seems.... 

i don't understand why everyone wants to focus on the one not so great review instead of focusing on all the other great reviews the game has received so far its like fanboys wants to discredit every good game on the wii its so annoying.