^^awesome explaination

Bashing a game for lack of ingenuity, when it has stated time and time again that it is a retro game? A return to form? A classic 2-D sidescroller being knocked for being exactly what it is supposed to be?

Or did Edge also give a 70/100 to Modern Warfare 2 because it's just a classic return to FPS gaming from the mid-90's and offers no ingenuity?

I'm calling shenanigans. Somebody give me a phone.

For EDGE's true stance of NSMBW you run it through this highly complex algorithm:

TRUE_EDGE_SCORE = EDGE_SCORE + 20

Who here thinks that this will surprass any of the 2-D mario games before it?

Except, Modern Warfare 2's multiplayer adds more to the game than the entire NSBWii adds to mario.

NSBWii will be amazing, I've got it pre-ordered and its the only wii game i'm buying this year since in my opinion its all the platform had to offer. That being said, it will no doubt be an amazing game.

Still, adding 4 player limited multiplayer and a coin collection mode is no where near the amount of work that went into completely revamping the multiplayer system with layers and layers and layers of depth that infinity ward did for modern warfare 2.

The multiplayer modes are something that is a given, Littlebig planet has it, infact, NSBWii is bringing absolutely nothing new to the table, that's the point of the game. It's a back to roots mario game.

It will be fantastic, but I feel a 70 from edge given their other reviews is fine. It will gain about 85 overall. It does not deserve over 90 due to extremely limiting multiplayer, no online, only 3 characters and the fact that it is not technically impressive.

These are pieces of software, the technical ability of them is a judging factor. Remember, NSBWii would be better if it had better graphics. Graphics do not make a game but they do add to them.

Do not hate on other games. Edge is notorious for their stance, let it be. Enjoy the game. Nintedo will enjoy the money, everyones happy.

Quality is (generally) relative. Popularity is not.

Not that I'm saying sales always = quality, but it's really the only definite way to measure a games "quality" if there is a way, because everyone is going to have their own idea of what a good game is. But sales indicate that a game does something that pleases the most people.

Hm, 85 is good. I definitely think it'll go higher as we get more reviews for the game. Honestly, I don't even look at reviews for games likes this, games I know I will enjoy.

^^god point you got there...

I am not hating on your favorite game dude.  I'm just calling shenanigans.

But what has MW2 added to MW1?  I honestly don't know.  I've only seen dozens of threads by people complaining about all the features Activision removed from the game, and jacking up the price for the PC version.

Mario is going from 1 player to 4 players.  That's a 300% increase.

Modern Warfare is going from 32 players to 18 players.  That's a 43.75% decrease.

I don't understand how Call of Duty: Modern warfare 1.5 got eight 100% scores on metacritic.

Wait, I do understand, Activision just bought these reviews.

Reviews shouldn't be trusted, no game can be perfect. You can only give a game a perfect score if there isn't a single flaw in the game, not even a small one. So these so called professional reviewers are telling me that there isn't a single flaw in modern warfare 1.5? There is 0 lag online? The graphics are the best ever seen? The singleplayer is longer then 5 hours? It's not a linear single player game? It does a whole lot of new things?

How can you give a game a perfect score with obvious flaws like this? I'm not saying this game is bad, I'm just saying that a perfect score is a no can do.