What baffles me is the lack of consistency. If reviewers want to give SMG perfect scores that's fine but don't grant the game concessions you won't afford others. IGN saw fit to 'overlook' the story element, lack of voice acting and minor issues with the auto-camera to give SMG a 9.5 for presentation and graphics - but the same people came down hard on 'mario-esque' Kameo on the 360, where chief in their comments was "the story is simple and not very engaging."

look people. it just pwnd k?

As much as I like the underrated Kameo, I certainly wouldn't call it Mario-esque. It's a fantasy action-adventure game, while I consider SMG to be a pure platform game...

The rating is a combination of its title, its creator, its smooth and enjoyable gameplay, its pleasant atmosphere, and the satisfaction felt upon completing the game.

This. Also topic is obviously causing a lot of trolling and probably the whole intention of the thread, so before this gets anymore out of hand and pointless...