The real joke in these kinds of discussions is that most other studios in the world dream that they could one day make one Nintendo Core Staff's "bad" games.
For you, the day that you first played Mario Galaxy was the most important day of your life. But for EAD, it was Tuesday.
The thing is, it's not that every game is "perfect". There are less good, and even bomb, aspects of many of their games. The difference is that these tend to be sour notes in an otherwise higher tier package, rather than the critical flaws that make a merely good game mediocre. Any development project runs the risk of core flaws in the design bearing rotten fruit when it's too late to turn back. Nintendo's main guys are just really good at insuring the experience is still, on the whole, better than most others could accomplish.
That is why, with hindsight, a lot of people feel the games are in fact classics... after one's sour first impressions pass, and some detail that was bugging you is forgotten, coming back later puts it all into perspective.
An example is Mario Sunshine. Sunshine, like TWW, is flawed by being rushed; it clearly uses blue coin hunts and the like to make busy work to get to 120 stars. That is a flaw compared to the best 3D Mario games.
But, when I went back and played it again later, without expectations of BEST GAME EVER weighing it down, I didn't mind them. Just running around as Mario, even using the damn water pack, was fun and rewarding enough that grabbing the coins was fun.
