Why is it rediculous to expect a game in 2009 which features 4 player multi player to have a bare minimum of online features on a console that has an internet service? I just don't get it.

When games like littlebigplanet offer so much more and also have online, I just don't see why its unreasonable to expect multiplayer.

The game is getting a pass on some sites just because its mario, but that wont do for all.

it's not a worse game, but i would expect more out of my money. If the game were cheaper, say $39.99, well i could forgive that.

I don't have an issue with the score, but I'm tiring of the Nintendo team at IGN and their values. They seem to be people that really enjoy the PS3 and 360, and wish for the Wii to become them. Online multiplayer would have been nice, and I don't mind them docking points off for it, but keep it consistent. There's a lot of games that could use some 4 player splitscreen multiplayer and/or local co-op and they don't get docked for not having it. Both features are of equal stature, since one can never tell which is more important to the person reading the review. Either dock for both, or don't dock for either.

From what he said in the video review it sounded like it should have gotten lower... but he didn't give it lower because it was Mario.

I'd like to chime in here to tell you that you are 100% WRONG. 

Hell, I'd buy a standalone online-only version of the game because I actually have friends in other states that I'd like to play this game with.  Seriously Khuutra, there is an audience which would love online multiplayer and I'm a part of it.  Ignoring it just makes you sound arrogant and selfish.

I want you to imagine me sighing, straightening my bow, and re-applying my lipstick.

I also have friends online that I'd like to play with, but "appreciably improve" assumes two things:

1. It would add functionality to the game that is not currently there (which is true)

and

2. This functionality would in itself be necessarily ... how do you say... not well-integrated, but something like it (which is not necessarily so)

It assumesn ot only that there would be a use for it but also in that it would not detract from the experience in any way. I'm not even expressing my own opinion here, I'm quoting Miyamoto from an interview in Wired:

Source: http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2009/10/shigeru-miyamoto/

Your post makes zero sense.

Your number 2 makes no sense at all.  Your quote from Miyamoto about sacrificing one thing for another is only true if you're being limited by the format (disc space) or time/money (lol) and I seriously doubt Nintendo is limited by either with this game.   I'd wager Nintendo could take 3-4 months and integrate quality online play into NSMB Wii.  I'd also wager the reason they're not putting it in has nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with getting it onto store shelves before the holiday season.

And your last part makes no sense because I never mentioned laziness anywhere in my posts (though you are very selfish kootiepie :P ).

FTR: LBP is more of a puzzle platformer, this game is platformer.

I skipped the word "the" because quite literally this is platforming.

If there's a switch in a Mario game it's not part of the point in getting to the flag.

^_^

I'm only comparing them based on the fact that they are platformers, but still.

Craig Harris of IGN writes: "This is aimed squarely at Nintendo and all the fanboys defending its decision: make any excuse you want, but any other first party publisher on any other current generation system would have ensured that a game as high a caliber as New Super Mario Bros Wii would have put focus on getting the game online. The fact that this game totally shuns online completely shows Wii owners just how unimportant internet play is to the company. Or rather, it continues to show how ignorant Nintendo is to the online demand."

You actually left out two other limiting factors.

The first limitation would be in processing power - I don't remember this being said specifically, though it was bandied about at some point by pundits on one side or the other, I don't know. I don't know if it's necessarily related to the reason, though in theory it could be. It could also be that a Mario platformer, more than most, could be hurt by Nintendo's laggy online. I don't know.

The second limitation would be limitation of design focus, which is what I thiink Miyamoto was talking about. I do not pretend to know why: I am one of those particular sheep who take what Miyamoto says at face value.

We have no indication about how long Nintendo has been working on this game: its announcement date is related to the beginning of its production in no way, and there's no particular way to glean anything unless Nintendo happens to tell us.

Though I imagine you may actually be right about the necessarily deadline of the game, I also imagine you'r probably wrong about the lack of online multiplayer stemming from this: we don't actually know when the game was finished, either. It could have been mostly finished at E3, and only held back until now to take advantage of holliday sales.

But you want to know what I really think?

I think this game was designed specifically to be played in the living room so that you could have over people who don' own a Wii and play with them. This, like Mairo Kart and Wii Sports (yes Mario Kart has online, but it's rooted in a splitscreen multiplayer tradition which the sidescrollers aren't) will be one of the titles meant to get your friends to buy a Wii. It's more simple, delightful, carefully honed greed that drives this decision. But that's a matter of design, not of laziness.

The last part was brought up to place your post in the tapestry of similar posts from throughout this thread.