Metacritic isn't reliable due to the huge inconsistencies between each games position. This is not all Metacritic's fault, but the fact remains you cannot sensibly take their approach with some titles having 50 plus reviews vs others with far less and truly compare across titles. Not to mention trying to adapt different scores to their template plus the fact they include questionable sources at times.
Taking a game on Meta/Gameranking with say 90% with 50 reviews and saying hah, this isn't as good as a game with 92% and 20 reviews is simply flawed and actually rather meaningless.
Sure, it has credibility in that lots of people use it, and even the industry quotes it, but this doesn't stop it being wrong - simply accepted. As ever, having studied maths and statistics I just never fail to be astonished at the eagerness of the average joe to accept stuff because they need something to direct their choices and also enforce their beliefs.
In the end Gamerankings and Metacrtic exist as a 'better than nothing' option for those who want quick answers which are probably not entirely accurate but are hopefully close enough.
As ever, they are used to re-enforce existing bias for the most part in posts like this, in the most juvenile kind of cock waving around.
For the record both consoles have great libraries, the PS3 is arguable more eclectic overall but the 360 has plenty of variety too and probably suffers from having higher sales of core genres overshadow some of its own more eclectic titles, and nobody sane should be running out of quality games to play on either.
Now stop arguing the lot of you!
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...
Essay Pro