The Metascores are aimed at the average gamer with expanded knowledge and experience across all genres.
Don't blame IT, if YOU don't fall into this category.

If you're a fan of a certain genre, you can add a few points to the game, if you hate the genre you can subtract a few points.

The problem lies not within Metacritic. The problem are the users that can't interpret the numbers.
But well I tell that Wii fans here all the time and they just don't give a damn....

1. Ok, let's let one of the millions who enjoyed Carnival Games to review that game. They think it's great, right? So it gets a 9/10......if you think that game is of the same caliber as (and I'll go after one of Nintendo's gems) Ocarina of Time, you're wrong. Sure, all reviews are subjective, based on what people "like" but then again, no matter how bad a game is, SOMEONE in the world must like it, otherwise it would have never sold. Should reviewers then have to cater their reviews to those gamers and boost the scores of said bad game?

2. I doubt they sit through a half hour only. I'm sure you just made that up. Otherwise, reviewers should just review demoes

All of this plus 1 times a billion

I really don't know about the 30 minute claim though I see some reviews that after playing the game you KNOW they at least didn't play even half way through before making the review.

Many sources do pretty awful reviews simply because they review the game based on an incomplete build, this happens a lot in fact, one example I can list off the top of my head is the Nintendo Power review of Okami, it was unfinished, it had things factually wrong, and not representative to the build sold to the public, so in short it make the review absolutely useless to everyone, yet its still on metacritic lol

I'm the opposite!

I keep NOT having fun on excelent reviewed games! I'm such a loser!

1. Here's where we obviously differ - if I wanted a review of Carnival Games (or Carnival Games 2), I would rather get it from someone who enjoys (or has the capacity to enjoy) this type of game. A review of GOW3 by someone who hates button mashing is useless to me, same as a review of a mini game compilation is useless to me if it's by someone who hates mini games.

2. Half an hour was not an actual claim, I was kind of in a hurry so I forgot to add some whatchamacallits that would make it clear I am half joking, but only half. I meant what Maxwell wrote, "I see some reviews that after playing the game you KNOW they at least didn't play even half way through before making the review" AND "Many sources do pretty awful reviews simply because they review the game based on an incomplete build, this happens a lot in fact". For example, a review of The Conduit that does not even mention that it has online multiplayer, when that was the main point of the game? (imagine a review of MW or MW2 that does not acknowledge the existence of the online and does not take it into account, for good or for bad).

The only problem I have with reviews is when a game gets some 5's out of 10, and then later some 8's or 9's out of 10. In the back of my mind I think it feels like a love/hate relationship. You may love the game or hate it. Not both.  It begs the question, should I buy it or not? Difficult decision, then again I usually go with, would I like this type of game and enjoy it.  Reviews are useful though, especially for deeper games with options, combat strategies and the like, and possible bugs or flaws within.

I'd argue that review is the perfect example of the Wii getting the short end of the stick for simply being the Wii. You docked points for graphics, and yet you didn't name one game that looked better. The last time I mentioned this you gave a generic "any 1st party game looks better" but that is no where close to true. The only explanation I ever came up with is you held the system to the graphical standards of the PS360, and thats not a valid comparison.

It really isn't that reviewers hate the Wii for the most part. There are exceptions like the Game Informer(?) review of The Conduit that is filled with blatant lies. For the most part though it is simply that reviewers are not taking the system on its own terms, nor are they trying to understand which audience a game is targeted at. When a reviewer gives a game a 2 out of 10, and it goes on to be a multi-million seller then the reviewer fucked up plain and simple.

Now I am not trying to argue sales are an absolute indicator of quality. People won't keep buying shitty games though. People buy games for a reason, and that reason is they are fun. A games primary purpose is expected to be fun, although there are other considerations that are not relevant to my point here. Games that have next to no advertising, no name brand recognition, and no good press are going on to sell 3 million or more copies. The only possible explanation is word of mouth. Friends get friends to buy it, which means many of the owners are loving their time with the game.

Ultimately what it has come down to is reviewers are not representative of the market as a whole. They reflect the sensibilities of a significant portion, but not all of it. Possibly not even the majority of it at this point. The PS360 is making a name for themselves in the part of the market that do match up with what your typical video game reviewer will value. The Wii has mostly made a name for itself in a different market. It is the party friendly, and more gender neutral section of the market. Reviewers are coming at the games from the 13-30 year old male perspective that is increasingly not a dominant sector of the market. They need to either adapt, or reviews will be meaningless for a very large number of games.

Perhaps you are right that I was rough on the game as far as graphics go, but the presentation as a whole got a 7.0 not just the graphics, and that includes the story and voice acting which helped make the game just an average presentation score and have nothing to do with comparing the graphics to PS360.  And there are games that I think look better such as LKS and SMG.