Personally, I think it's pretty overrated.  It's a game with a sensational art style, a decent level editor, and bad to decent platformating.

The user created levels are supposed to be the big draw but I didn't see much.  It has been a few years since I played, but most levels were  bad.  Mixed in there you could occasionally find a decent level, but those were few and far between. 

Don't expect the amazing game that people make it out to be.  It's nothing more than a barely acceptable platformer with a good art style.

It's the best game on PS3, imo, and will be until sometime next month.

Don't go into it expecting an amazing platformer, or an incredibly fun to use editor.  Go into it expecting a fun multiplayer experience, in which you can run around with your friends in a literally never ending stream of pre-made and user made levels, competing for points, beating each other up, or in general just acting like fools.

Features like the editor are enjoyable for some, sure, which is why there are well over 2 million levels to play so far, but they're not the main draw for most people.

And I wasn't planning to comment on posts from people who donn't like the game, as everyone seemed to have legitimate gripes at first, but this...

...this is just blatantly false, and it's a conclusion that could only be reached if the person hasn't played the game for more than several minutes.

I find a level that fits this criteria usually ends up being pretty good:

Interesting title/description (ie, The Legend of _______ as opposed to H4H or Shark Attack 27)
4-5 star rating
>10% of those who've played it have hearted it

With the last point being the most important, as it shows whether they'd want to play it again in the future.

1- Why do Nintendo fans insist on using sales as the sole measure of a games quality? I guess Zack & Wiki and The Conduit are shit games then, seing the small numbers they've moved.

2- If you call LBP below mediocre, I really don't understand you. Its the Playstation's Mario Galaxy imo.

3- PS: According to that small group of nerds, some of the most highly rated games of all time are Nintendo games.

And sales are a good way to rate a game. Anyone can make a review and rate a game. But how many are willing to spent money for it? If the game is really worth playing, they will buy it [if whoever the game is meet with dissapointment the used games shelf might be it's destiny (and that's another reason developers want pure digital sales: people can't resell their game when they are unhappy with it)}.

No they're not. Games aren't special, they're just like any other entertainment. And just like any other entertainment there are absolute gems which have low sales.

2D platformers without a story aren't really my thing. But I totally recognise the quality of this game. It was the one game my sons' 360 and Wii owning friends ALWAYS wanted to play when they came over to play. And everyone I know who bought LBP love it.

And if you want to judge a game's quality based on sales then you've got to put it in the right context in order to judge. Comparing LBP sales to Mario is completely the wrong context. The fact that LBP is the 12th best selling PS3 game is the right context. And the fact that LBP is one of the leggiest games on PS3 is also the right context. So in fact LBP sales, if sales were a legitimate measure of game quality, would show that it is a game worth its critical acclaim.