If the games are good enough to warrant a 10, they should get one. It's not some mystical number of perfection, and it doesnt neccesarily mean that Famitsu has gone soft. They can't help if if they didn't feel like there were many truly excellent games up to this point - I mean, gaming is more advanced, and older, and with bigger budgets, than it has ever been as a medium. Surely that should go hand in hand with an increase in quality.

I don't argue that there are problems with the review system. My original point was that a 10 doesnt equal perfection, just a top-drawer, excellent title.

They (Famitsu) may be giving higher scores lately, but it is also true that he past couple of years saw the release of some incredible games both new and old IPs.

Be honest Mummelmann:

You didn't read the thread before posting, did you?

I think you all take review scores WAY too literally.

I think that a 10/10 score just means that the game is really, really freakin' awesome. And it is. So I think the score is fair and just.

But even taking into account Famitsu giving higher scores now, does this game really deserve a 40/40 compared to all the past Mario games?  Is this game really better than Mario 3, Mario World or Yoshi's Island, which didn't get 40/40?  Or how about Mario 64, which got a 39/40 and Mario Galaxy, which got a point less than Mario 64 at 38/40?

In short, this game has gotten the highest score of any Mario game by Famitsu's rating system.  Its not too much to ask then that they must think its the definitive Mario title.  But really, is it?  I certainly wouldn't put it at the top.

And also, I don't think any reviewer who gives out a 40/40 or 10/10 score is simply saying its a 'really awesome' game.  That just makes reviewing a game pointless and even more about the reviewers personal opinions than reviews already are.  If that was the case, then all Metroids and Dragon Quests should automatically be 40/40, just because they're 'awesome'.

Again, you're taking it WAY TOO LITERALLY.

Don't bring that bullshit to me, I don't really care. Whine about how horrible the review system is to someone else. All I'm saying is that whether it's a 9, 9.5, or even a 10, chances are that it's a game worth your time and money. New Super Mario Bros. Wii definitely seems to fit the bill.

And again, don't cry to me. I couldn't care less.

I wonder what kind of thread you thought this was.

Doesn't matter.  You proved my point.

I don't know.  I look through something like Metacritic or GameRankings, and see the top 20 or 30 games of all time, or all the games that are over 90% from EVERY reviewer in the world... or I just go to any site, and see what their top 10 games are, and almost every list makes me want to puke.  Definitely not worth my time, and they couldn't pay to play half the crap they give perfect scores to.

Why can't game reviewers appreciate art or innovation or personality, and why can't I appreciate tired old ideas with shiny new coats of paint???

Please Montana, tell me why it has to be this way!!!

My point is just that there's a difference between 'being a joke' and not being as strict as before. I agree wth both of you. They were always the most respected and that is possibly sliding, but to call a mag a joke because of giving 40/40 is hardly fair.