That's misunderstanding the scoring. Being a fanboy would be twisting the scoring. 

IGN's scores aren't averages. What if a game is incredibly fun, but only an hour long? Do you give it a low score just because it's short? No, it's a good game still. So it gets a low replay value score, but a higher overall score. As is the case here. "Average" scores or "cumulative" scores are stupid. IGN has a really good rating system (they just don't always use it well).

Oh that's nothing. The real question is how they got a 7.9 for Defend Your Castle from a 7,3,6,7, and a 7.

It's like Avalanch21 said, the game is greater than the sum of its parts (and it's $5 bucks *nice guy pose*).

I plan on getting both of these titles, since they both look really fun. 

Now, who wants to be a pal... 

This game explains why GTA4 deserved a 10. I'm not saying this is a bad game as i, sure its great but if 2.5 hours of side scrolling gameplay gets you an 8.2 in 2008...GTA4 should be an 11.

Even not being a sum of all the stcores... I kinda think a games score shouldn't be higher then ALL Of it's individual scores.

 Uh.... No.

MOST sites scale reviews by their price.  IGN was one of them

Remember when Warhawk got some points knocked off because they thought the game cost $10 too much... and PS3 fans went berserk.

Great, one of the first wii ware Titles I want to download as soon as I got a points card :)

good score! 3 hours is the perfect length for me.

 Games are determined by how good they are/$. This game is really good for a $10 dollar game. Now if gta IV was $10 dollars it would deserve a 20 out 10, but it's not. 

 Um.... no. I haven't played GTA yet so I can't speak to its' score but the length should not be the reason it gets a 10.  Take Portal.  An amazing classic game.... that I finished in one sitting.  Length should have an impact on scores as it affects replay value but it is further down the pecking order after important things like gameplay, story, graphics and sound.