OMG, you are delusional. Halo 3 is not a masterpiece. You are right, I do have a problem with the rating system, I just find it odd that someone would follow such a rating so blindly. You can think what you want. "AAA" is just an arbitrary piece of crap stat that people use to grade what a game should be. Ok, you're right, perhaps AAA does equal 90% in the minds of the people who review, but AAA is just a random term. Halo 3 = masterpiece = fail.

Personal opinion does not affect a game's 'masterpiece' status. On a purely technical level, game sales determine whether a game is a masterpiece or not. This does of course discount actual game quality and depth, but honestly, there is no corollary between sales and quality. It's very illogical to say that a game is not a masterpiece just because you personally don't like it when it's sold over 5 million copies in under 3 months, or over 15 million copies in the lifespan of the system it was on.

So any game that sells well is a masterpiece? That's what you seem to be implying. This can't be legitimate to you. Carnival games is a masterpiece? Can you possibly explain again.

It's not difficult to grasp. People express their interest with their wallets. Ergo a game that sells well has mass appeal, and is thus a masterpiece. There is no room for judgement of quality, as the truth of the matter is that quality is a matter of personal preference. And personal preference has never had any impact whatsoever on the perceptions of the world at large, which seems to perplex and even anger many people.

So Carnival Games is a masterpiece and Okami is not. Maybe you're right...............

I think a cognizant example of how quality is in the eye of the beholder may well be in order... 

 This is a painting by Hugh Fleming, called Star Wars Rocks.  There are a lot of people who think it's a great painting, and who would consider it a masterpiece.  There are also a lot of people who would deem it "pop culture trash", and "not worthy of masterpiece status".  Neither side is right, nor is either side wrong.  To the fans of Star Wars Rocks, this is a masterpiece.  To the dissenters, it is not.  There is no practical way to measure it, because the opinion of the painting varies from person to person.

In that case I can see it, but can a person objectively call Carnival Games a masterpiece and look at Okami and SOTC and correctly say no?

It is possible. Some people do not like Okami's art style. Others don't like its gameplay. The same is true of Shadow of the Colossus. Carnival Games has a high level of appeal compared to those two, and while you and I may be able to appreciate them for their qualities, others see those qualities as detractors.

What I am proposing here is called "cognitive dissonance", and what it means is that you have to accept that what is true is not necessarily the same is what you want to believe is true.

AAA=/=90%+

There is no definition of AAA, its a bullshit title given randomly to games which are considered blockbusters and of high quality. A small game which scores 95%+ but doesn't sell 500k would not be considered AAA and neither would Mario Party 8. Its kind of a combination of sales and quality and most certainly doesn't have an exact definition.

Resistance could easily be considered an AAA title by some people.

So wouldn't this dictate that things such as AAA are irrelevant because everyone has different ideas of what AAA is? Is something true because most believe it to be true? I suppose you're saying if it is true to most, it may as well be reality?