So you say people are buying everything and only some can tell what is good and what not?

I'm glad you are not the one to decide over the political system in my country, because you'd surely install a dictator. Your opinion is against all the theories of free will, Liberalism and democracy.

Now you may think I am exagerating, but this is really where your way of thinking is leading to. Of course sometimes a bad game, a bad artist or a bad film gets great sales, but those media are usually "bad" in a different way than the rock band of your brother. For example, there are a lot of things that can be said against Britney Spears, but she actually is a good singer and had good songs. In my opinion, her songs are bullshit compared to the album of Kate Nash, but I still prefer her over Mary J. Blige for example, while other people may think that Kate Nash is bullshit and MJB the best thing in the world. Best selling things aren't usually the best, but the things most people like somehow, i.e. the general consensus. That doesn't make them bad, that only makes them less special than some less popular artists.

This works the exact same way for games. You can sit down and have a lot of fun playing Mario Party. This is nowhere near the joy you have when you are playing an epic single player game, but it's still fun. Here's the great difference to other low rated games as HappySquirrel already pointed out: Mario Party is not rated low because of it's flaws like other 70 % games, but because it isn't heading the same way as epic games.

Talk about completly missing the point, the fact is people can like whatever they want to like, i never said any different. To put it simply just because somebody likes something the best doesn't mean it actually is the best. For decades gamers have accepted that the average review score from professional reviewers is a very good indicator of how good a game is. Every generation without fail the console with the most top rated games is the console that wins the generation. This has now gone all back to front because casual gamers have come along and they don't have a clue what a good game is.

Lets use motor racing as an example. Fans of motor racing like the skill of the drivers, they like the technical knowledge of building a car, they like the excitement of overtaking, cornering, quick pit stops and team tactics. A good race is one that contains all of those things. Now lets say their is a new casual crowd that has come along to watch racing, they don't really care about the things i mentioned above, all they care about is how many crashes their are, also because they don't really care that much about racing they can't be bothered to watch an hour long race, they can only be bothered with a 20 minute race. So yet again the casual crowd don't have a clue about what makes a good race just like they don't have a clue what makes a good game. A race with poor drivers, poorly built cars, no overtaking, amature pit stops and bad team tactics is a terrible race no matter how you slice it, if in that race their were a bunch of spectacular crashes the the casual crowd loved does that now make the race a good one??? Hell no, it was still a terrible race with a bunch of casual people with poor taste completely oblivious.

I'm bitter because im stating facts? A bad game is a bad game, if casuals seem to like them then good for them they are having fun. I've already seen the ps2 list of million selling games and if you want the breakdown that shows the quality of the games on the list here you go:

Out of the 205 million selling ps2 games listed on vgchartz 132 have an average review score of 80% or more. That's 64% of ps2 million sellers are rated 80% or above compared to only 40% of wii games rated at 80% or above.

When the majority of million selling games are top rated. So that's atleast 50%, ideally 60%.