this graph is weird. something somewhere is wrong. It should be a bell curve. Is this graph charting games that score 1-10 or just 7-10, it's just not making sense to me.

does it go like this : you take 1% of all games for a console (for example if you go from left to right - the 1% that is best rated, then the 1% after that and so on) - take the average of those scores and thats one of the x-axis steps ?

1. The curve would idealy be a bell if the bottom represented quantity, but if you think about it, quantity wouldn't work for the bottome. To quote the OP:

"It shows the metacritic scores in 1% of games increments across the bottem."

The reason for that is that the line itself represents the quantity while the bottom represents the gradual increase in % and the Y axis represents a rounded 10 score.

In easier to digest terms the Y elaborates the X axis

The longer the line stays within a certain range on the X axis the more games within that range and it's reflected on the Y axis.

For a second I was like wtf happened to the X axis and then I reread the OP.

@ senseinobaka )

you can easily make a bell curve from that graph, if you just take an inetrvall on the y-axis (like for example 90%-85%) and count how many steps on the x-axis are made in that intervall - if you do that with every 5% intervall and make a graph out of that (y-axis = quantity of steps , x-axis = intervalls) you have your bell curve

I could believe the Wii has a higher proportion of poor titles, and I do not believe it is reviewer bias. The reality is that the Wii started with a bad stigma created by the previous two consoles, and then the stigma did an about face into another bad direction. The console started with an abundance of preteen garbage. Nobody accused eight year olds of having fantastic taste or a critical eye towards quality. They buy the game, because it has their favorite cartoon character on the front. Then third parties jumped on to the casual mini game market, or worse very dated ports.

The console just doesn't have a fantastic lineup. The carry over karma hurt the launch lineup. The success of Mario Party 8, Smooth Moves, Carnival Games, Wii Play, and Raving Rabbids then created a poor perception. The console got a plethora of poorly made yet highly selling party games. When developers saw that quality was of no real concern they gave the console the mark of Cain as it were. Instead of labeling the console kiddie this generation they have instead labeled it the party game machine.

The reviewers appear to have been critical, but that is their job. I love to read the attacks on Wii Sports reviews. The reality is if you judge the game as a stand alone title it just isn't very good. Sure you can think highly of it, because it was free with the console. However would you pass up a Mario Galaxy for Wii Sports, or even a Resident Evil 4. Would Wii sports be worth fifty dollars?

the way the i understand this graph is:
x-axis values = 1 - 100 (metacritic's 100% scale)
y-axis values = number of titles or quantity

so a coordinate would = how many titles scored x

assumptions that are made is that 50% or half way across the x-axis will be the median. in other words the majority of games are mediocre and score around 5/10.

This would create a bell curve, any deviation from that curve would indicate a bias towards one side or the other.

from what this graph is saying more games scored 1% than 50% and more games scored 50% than 100%. It's a straight negative trend which is problematic

@ senseinobaka )

you obviously missunderstand the graph

the y-axis is NOT the quantity, it's the metacritic score

This graph is ridiculous. It shows absolutely nothing. I have no idea what you people are thinking who are agreeing with this, but you should probably take a few seconds to actually read what it's trying to show.

Wow, the Wii is significantly lower than the other five consoles.