I totally agree. 

The truth is I find some members on these forums far better and more accurate at reviewing games that any "expert" critic and they use less words and waffle, regardless of which console they support.

OT: Good sales for a game with a metacritic 84 rating and long may people make their minds up over the quality of a game by reading more than a metacritic review.

The question isn't about a few subjectively prefered reviews, it's about overalls, and as objective as possible

As a whole, what is more reliable ? the average opinion of all paid reviewers - or ? *nothing else* *and certainly not the few selected reviews of a random person*

Facts :

Metas are the most reliable indication of a game's quality. It has its' flaws but there is simply no better indicator than it. It is the aggregation of professional reviews, what else ?

GT5 is quality-wise the declining point of a series, metas might have been lowered due to the difference between the expected and the delivered, but in all honesty, the PS3 crowd has to choose :

Either uberhyping increases metas (due to the rolling tsunami of marketing versus little underpowered journalists) or uberhyping games hurt the sales (due to this very same difference between the expected and the delivered and the egocentric reviewer who decides the game must be punished).

But it certainly cannot be both - and it certainly cannot systematically be the one which better suits PS3's interests - typical example of this double standard : Halo's meta has been hightened due to over-hype / GT5's has been lowered due to over-hype)

And please oh please the "you have to play it to understand the value of a game" is the worst argument ever. Every-single bad game has had a fan (- maybe not the really bad onees as the ET games in the early 80's, although who knows ?), a fab of a bad game who would tell you it's great, especially at about 75% of its' completion.

Absolutely none of you have been able to come up with a better indicator of quality than metas. And it seems you are not even trying. That alone makes my point.

Still, as I have faith in the human kind I'll still grant you a few other enlightments :

Publishers and the whole industry take them into account. They are proud of having high scores and disappointed when not, but not only for the effect it will have on sales, also for the pure win.

Metas being an aggregation of reviews, the pressure of Publishers PRs on journalists is disminished. The smarter people will have noticed that early reviews are higher than the ones later. That's because the exclusivity of an early copy or of an early deenbargo onthe publication of the review comes at the price, more or less implicit, that the review must be favorable ('if you believe that the game deserves an 8.7 we would be glad to let you publish this week intead of the next" is a common tactic")

Last but not least, these metas are simply the most efficient indicator possible. Professionals and not amateurs. Non-selling entities instead of publishers' PR (god knows how fans of a game can buy everything a company says for years and then claim reviewers are the mistaken ones) XD

Anyway, thanks for confirming my point

http://gametheoryonline.com/2010/07/07/why-metacritic-matters/

Absolutely none of you have been able to come up with a better indicator of quality than metas. And it seems you are not even trying. That alone makes my point.

Everyones point has been that it's still not a good measure of quality. It's the best of an incredibly bad bunch. That doesn't make it a good measure.

Still, as I have faith in the human kind I'll still grant you a few other enlightments :

Publishers and the whole industry take them into account. They are proud of having high scores and disappointed when not, but not only for the effect it will have on sales, also for the pure win.

It makes for decent PR when your games have higher meta ratings. The "pure win" comment just shows the immaturity of the industry as a whole.

Metas being an aggregation of reviews, the pressure of Publishers PRs on journalists is disminished. The smarter people will have noticed that early reviews are higher than the ones later. That's because the exclusivity of an early copy or of an early deenbargo onthe publication of the review comes at the price, more or less implicit, that the review must be favorable ('if you believe that the game deserves an 8.7 we would be glad to let you publish this week intead of the next" is a common tactic")

I'm not sure how this is a good thing. If anything it shows that meta ratings and scores are open to certain forms of bribery and manipulation. This doesn't in any way show it's a good measure of quality, actually quite the opposite. Do you honestly think this makes meta scores accurate representations of quality?

Last but not least, these metas are simply the most efficient indicator possible. Professionals and not amateurs. Non-selling entities instead of publishers' PR (god knows how fans of a game can buy everything a company says for years and then claim reviewers are the mistaken ones) XD

I've already made the point that they're nearly all amateurs. Enthusiast press does not equate to professionals, especially when a lot of publishers serenade reviewers. Many publications are simply an extension of PR especially when they're paying for adverts on these supposedly professional websites. 

Anyway, thanks for confirming my point

http://gametheoryonline.com/2010/07/07/why-metacritic-matters/