So you're saying the only people who should be able to play this game should be good fighters?  How ridiculous is that?  It's a GAME.

That's like saying I need to be able to dunk a basketball to enjoy NBA 2k11.

The purpose of a game is have fun, if you can't create an experience that is *capable* of being fun for the majority of people then it's a poorly designed game.

If you have no idea how to throw a punch then a true 1:1 motion controlled fighting simulation game probably isn't the best purchase for you to make. What I find surprising is that so many reviewers have struggled with it. Everyone at some point in their lives, probably when they were at school or in their teens, has had a punch up or two. Everyone knows how to box, because everyone at some point in their lives - unless they've been living in a Nunnery or Monastery lol - has seen at least part of a boxing match.

But if you have no idea how to throw a punch in real life then you're not going to be any good at the game. Because it's a 1:1 fighting game. It's not rocket science.

This is definitely the best 48% meta game i have ever played! I am loving it!

Today I have mostly been beating the crap out of other fighters :)

That meta score has totally made me rethink the value of metacritic.

And for gaming press.

This game is only good to the ps3 crowd and shitty biased websites.

So you're saying that no good game or solid game or 'enjoyable' game has ever been critically panned on Meta-critic? 
Are you really trying to pass that off?   Honestly,  I don't even see why you're making claims about how bad it is.   You've done nothing besides look at Meta-critic and you have no idea what you're talking about.

Probably because you need to have a PS3 to own it?  And since the low review scores everyone who doesn't own it and never will probably even play will keep parroting something they read on IGN. 

This statement is the most ridiculous, lol worthy-event I've seen posted.  It's a bad game and we're supposed to 'get over it' , even though you've never played it, you feel compelled to tell us how bad it is?   Gotcha.

  As someone who works in the game industry you shouldn't be so completely biased, and quick to judge.   Again as someone before mentioned if you have criticism of this game?   Mention it.   Bring it up.   Discuss why it's such a bad game to you.    Don't parrot 3rd hand information from a friend of a friend or try to use IGN or other completely (In-accurate reviews) to back up their opinion.

I don't believe anyone here thinks this game is a 10/10 GOTY candidate,  But I don't think anyone who has played the game thinks the game is anywhere below a 7/10.  

You worked on Ghostbusters didn't you?  I mean that game sucks (Ive never played it, but Ive heard).  Give me a break man.

This thread is basically full people wh:

1) Have never played the game saying how terrible it is

2) People who own the game saying how good it is

Is there anyone out there who owns (or rented/played) who did not enjoy it?

I'm sure if you continued reading my post you would have seen that I decided it was a bad game off of Metacritic.  There are a few higher reviews on there but generally there's a reason a game settles around a 48-- it's not a good game.

I see that and I don't have to play the game to know it isn't good.  That's why reviews exist so I don't have to waste my time on games that I won't like.  There's no bias in that statement, I didn't give the game any of those numbers that contributed to it's sub 50 average and I'm not sure where you think there was bias in that statement.  If you think I only watch/read reviews for games I like and then only comment about bad games if it's a PS3, you're pretty mistsaken.  If people don't want to trust reviewers that's fine, but sometimes you just have to accept that a bad game is a bad game.  Personally, I generally trust Gametrailers and IGN (I use to trust Kotaku too but I hate their new review system), I trust what my actual friends tell me, and I see value in Metacritics number.

As for Ghostbusters, I believe that game settled somewhere around a 78 or 79 last I looked which is still a good game.  Definately not game of the year by any means, but not a bad game either.  If you don't like it or don't want to try it, that's your choice and doesn't really bother me either way. 

Twestern pretty much said it all.

You don't need to play such a bad game to realize it actually sucks. If it was the kind of game that gets mixed reviews all over the place like FFXIII, there might exist some doubts and trying the game is definitely the best thing to do to criticize.

But a sub 50 meta means only one thing: shovelware.

Now if people enjoy shovelware thats a different and acceptable opinion. I pretty much enjoy Alfred Chicken from the PSone times and the game got sub 20 score.