based on what? Maybe you should play a game like Uncharted before saying it's all bull $hit and conspiracy against the wii. Maybe the game's on the wii truely do not offer an experience as great as some available on the PS3 or XBOX 360.

 Reviewers are payed to give a professional review on a game. Compared to game's that received ratings in the 90s(super mario galaxy, legend of zelda), would you agree that the game's listed on the OP deserve scores that high too?

This man just won the thread

wow thats all it takes to convince you?

I look at reviews as a percentage. If a reviewer gives a 3.5 to a game. I know that in 100 people only 35 will like the game. I use this thoughts because in my experience every game is loved by someone. One great example is casual games. Even if it received a mediocre score it could be the most funniest game to a person.

Someday people will come to the realization that a game can suck in many areas, get awful reviews, and yet still be fun to play. In this golden age, gamers will realize that many of the games they like are flawed, accept the reviews as honest criticism, and continue to play the games they love because they love them despite those flaws. And even should that day never come, I will play the low-rated games I enjoy be they Sakura Wars, Link's Crossbow Training, or Tales of Symphonia DotNW because I am a gamer and I am interested in playing fun games, not reviews.

See Nintendo fans. You're not the only ones that like crappy games :P

You made my day, thats the spirit

Im tired of playing overated games and im tiried of letting great games go, so ill just follow my heart (and forum impressions) and ill play games the way they were meant to be played (All day long)

These people are clearly lying through their teeth because those aren't one of those magical 85+ games.

a game can be good if it has a 70 on meta, I mean a 7 tends to mean "good"

oh wait I actually read reviews.. nvm

It's all that matters.