As far as Metacritic is concerned, it really is the best forum to show a general barometer of aggregate scores for games though. Of course, certain games get reviewed differently for certain consoles (See: The Evil Within on Xbox One vs. PS4), but it's the best source we have currently.

I agree with many people. In my opinion ports, multiplats and indies dont count.

And as of right now id rank the console libraries as:
1-Wii U
2-Xbone
3-PS4

I understand how Metacritic works and I understand the meaning of objective. 

Your presentation of these numbers may be objective, but the numbers per se are not. They are the collected works of human beings, all carrying their own preferences, priorities, hang-ups, and biases. Yes, by virtue of their proximity to the industry and their experience with games, they are given deference. But in no way does a 95 on Metacritic, for example, make a game great. It signals that the average weighted score from critics was 95, it signals overwhelming critical approval, but it doesn't signify greatness. 

And if we follow your line of thought to its logical conclusion, which I did in my original post, then why bother debating the quality of games? How can I argue that game A is better than game B, if Metacritic, which, as you say, is "objective evidence," says otherwise?

If you truly feel that PS4 is being unfairly criticized, then I encourage you to play its games, play its competitors' games, and write a detailed, thoughtful essay on why you personally believe that PS4 has an excellent library of games. It would be a lot more meaningful coming from you, based on your own analysis, written in your own words. Simply copying and pasting an aggregate of others' opinions does the whole topic a disservice.

Smash

Your argument is now invalid.

I agree, but like i said, that's not really how metacritic should be used. Reviewers are not free of preferences and biases, no one is. But they are (usually) the closest to that we get. If a mass of people think a site or reviewer is letting their bias overwhelm their role as a critic, they stop reading them. That, combined with meta often being a weighted average of 50 to 100 of them (a decent sample size), makes metacritic the most objective data we have. I'd argue that its use is fairly limited when comparing a select number of games, even if you are just looking at their probable generalize quality, but on large scales (such as 2 game libraries) it's a useful source of information.

While it should never be used as proof of an absolute, metacritic is objective enough that it can support statements like "[x] library is objectively more likely to be enjoyed than [y]". A statement doesn't have to  be a pure, unquestionable fact for it to have merit.

Of course, none of that will stop people using it as proof that someone is "wrong" for not liking one more than the other :p Damn your opinion, mine is better!

Yet my PS4 still collects dust. I need Drake and i need it now

No, actually, I wouldn't. A simple citation to a basic manual on statistics is all I'd need*, and that only if I decided to not hold you responsible for first proving your assertion that metacritic is somehow what you claim it is.

In reality, the system you're lauding as somehow eliminating system bias due to its non-random selection and weighing of a few dozen reviews (a highly questionable assertion in my opinion) demonstrably introduces equally egregious biases which negate the value of whatever information you're trying to discover, as a casual glance at its lists will easily demonstrate.**

So what does metacritic tell us? It tells us what the critics selected by metacritic think, as weighed by metacritic's opinion of the worth of those reviews. Nothing more, nothing less. If it got rid of the weighing system, it might actually tell us something about what professional game critics think, depending on how you define that term and how generous you want to be with your confidence level and interval. But then this thread was never supposed to be about what "critics" thought, was it?

*You're championing a system wherein gatekeepers first decide whose opinion is worth valuing - which is how Dewey beat Truman once upon a time - and then further degrading their questionable results by assigning arbitrary weight to each of said opinion. In other words, there's no randomness in the selection sample, and there's nowhere near a sufficient sample size to determine what game critics think of these games, let alone the general gamer population. I find it harder to believe that this system somehow creates even an illusion of a worthwhile result than that my calling twenty people I know who answer their landlines gives me an accurate idea of what most Americans think on any given topic, even without then giving Martha's opinion twice as much importance as Danny's.

**Unless you believe that the relationship between how people spend their money and what they think of games are independent of one another. I do not share that view in the least.

I turned mine on today to get the update and it has been so long the controller would not even come on. I had to plug it in and use the system.

Ah! Oh no! My personal taste suddenly feels so invalidated! I... I thought I was the one who decided what games interested me; it was Metacritic all along!!?

Nope! X1 has the best one IMO.