Sure a bigger number means the game is better than a game with a lower number.

BUT that's only if you're being a neutral gamer with no preferences. The reviewers rate a game knowing that many people read their articles, so they have to rate the game as objective as possible.

In the end no one can tell you that your favourite game with a score of let's say 82 is worse than a game with a score of 87. A 5 point difference is nothing. They're in the same quality category and only you're preferences make this game better in your opinion than the other game.

However a difference of more than 10 points is huge. If the game falls in the same genre it's almost a given that you'll like the game with the higher score much more. If the games aren't in the same genre it's a bit more difficult. Depends on if you can't stand the other genre or not.... too many variables here.

Anyway everyone should enjoy games with a score higher than 90. Doesn't matter which genre.

80-89 is considered as great. You don't have to be a major fan of the game series or genre to enjoy the game.

70-79 is considered as good. If you like the genre this could be a game for you. Others may like it too, but better stay away if you can't stand the genre.

Everything under 70 is only for hardcore fans of the genre and everything under 55 is just plain bad.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

You also shouldn't compare games from different generations. Expectations were different back then and so was the game experience. The numbers only would get legit if reviewers rate the game again.

No it's stupid then too.  I'd put Wii Sports and Wii Sports Resort in the top 10 Wii games, but they're at #104 and #56.  To me that's ridiculous.

And they gave a TMNT game a 60, when it doesn't even have multiplayer.  To me, a Turtles game with only one Turtle is a 0/100.

I only trust reviews from 3-4 friends in real life, and a few people I've learned to trust on here.  But basically, in my 20+ years of gaming I've gotten really good at trusting my own instincts and I'm never disappointed.  I know what I like.

And it's not just Wii games I love.  I am also gravely offended that the highest rated Katamari game is only an 86, when I think it's one of the best new IPs and new gameplay ideas of the last decade.

That's how you use the numbers.  Okay.  The numbers are meaningless to me, and I could go through all the 90+ games in every genre on every console, and spend several paragraphs explaining how 99% of them suck.

But I'll make this quick.  I thought Resident Evil 1 sucked.  Street Fighter IV sucked.  There's something old, something new, both 90+, I hated them both.

Kororinpa: Marble Mania is a 69 on Metacritic, and it's really really fun, but I guess I'm a "hardcore marble tilting gamer."

If you think they "suck" then you can't objectively judge the quality of games. I don't like Zelda that much, but I can see it's appeal.

I'd never say Zelda sucks.

On the other hand there's of course a minority that doesn't fit at all in that scheme (like every other system that exists in the world), so I guess you're a part of that.

When he posted that he gain respect from me :)... now I dont have to read 100 posts! btw, so what if this ggame doesnt sell well, I think there was a thread saying this should just die for being a (core test) which is pretty stupid when other develpers put out your (core) games...

I can't objectively judge the quality of games?  NOBODY CAN.  Not me, and definitely not an average of other people's opinions.  I don't know these people or what they like.

But when it comes to my tastes, and how much fun I'm having, nobody's opinion matters but mine.  And fun is why I buy games.

I'm not telling you what games are fun for you, and I'm not telling Metacritic what games are fun for them.  But when people on the internet cite Metacritic to tell me how much fun I should or would or could be having playing something, that's a waste of my time.

An on-rails shooter can be the highest rated game of all time, and it's not gonna be worth $50 for me.  I actually like on-rails shooters.  But they're not worth $50.  I could probably play through a whole House of the Dead game at a movie theater nearby for a couple bucks.  Good reviews don't make me spend my money, and considering the huge difference between the best-selling games and the highest-rated games, I think that's the same for most people.

Was that all you had to add? BAAAWWWWWWWWWWW! Really? I guess I'm not really surprised, Sony fans never really liked taking responsibility for their own trolling.

It did well with the critics though,so I would not call it a complete failure.Sometimes very good games don't sell well that doesn't mean they aren't good.Implying that the game did not find it's target audience in the system.It could be interesting to expand  this point.What if 'Dead Space Extraction' was a ps3/360 game?This perhaps suggests that Wii owners are no longer interest in on- rails shooters.However considering how well RE:UC did,that might not be the case.

I didn't say you were trolling. I said you were bawing. It was such a strange reply to make because what you said had no real relevance to what I had been saying before in the thread and is defending the most typical trolling behavior. Seriously, can someone here explain to me what Zack and Wiki has to do with Dead Space? They're not related in any way. They were released years apart, are from different publishers, different genres, and aren't even aimed at the same segment of 'core' gamers. I would say that by this point, anyone using the Zack and Wiki defense for their argument can be easily identified as a troll, as what they say is losing almost all relevance and importance to their cause with each day that passes.

But personally, I don't give a shit what platforms anyone likes. People scream that I'm targeting them because they know they've been caught doing something wrong. It's the nature of the victim card. When I call out trestres and his Nintendo trolling he cries that I'm 'stalkng' him. When another Wii thread gets stunk up by Sony fans trolling it, they cry that I'm targetting them. It's bullshit, just stop trolling and you won't get called on it. This isn't GameFAQs. That behavior is not encouraged. I don't want this place to become anywhere near as militant as neogaf but I think this is one of the times when the mods need to step in a shut a clusterfuck down, especially when it's the 3rd or 4th thread about the subject.

All this should really mean to EA is that they aren't likely to release another M rated on-rails shooters, Dead Space or other.

Personally, I don't think it as anything to do with the IP itself as there were plenty of Wii only owners who were happy to see an exclusive title on their platform from an IP they couldn't previously play until it was revealed to be another on-rails shooters.

Part of the problem is that the Wii naturally lends itself to be a "light gun" platform thanks to built in IR remote aiming, hence the fair amount of light gun games seen so far. And about the only light gun game I can think of offhand that made an attempt to break from rails was Time Crisis 4, which must not have done as well as Namco wanted or we'd have seen more Gun Con 3 games since then.

But, I suppose the message to developers would still be along the lines of core consumers are not currently too interested in light gun games.

It should be interesting to see how well the next RE light gun game will do.