You'd guess wrong, which you have been doing this entire thread.

Call what you said whatever you feel like it is. I was civil, rational, and on topic. I'd like to point out that you couldn't handle criticism and went at me personally rather than logically address this. I imply asked because it was immature and wanted to be sure that this was the path you decided to take. You have done nothing but jump to conclusions, generalize, and upon responding to me, you continously went off the topic. The fact that you are calling me a SJW is both laughable and only ferments what I've been saying. 

To the people complaining at the OP, let's be fairs, he does say "metacritics" which actually would refer to the people providing the reviews rather than metacritic itself.

However, when fans of other formats have said metas aren't fair reflections (Vita was a good example of this a couple of years ago), Nintendo fans were more than happy to accept that it's all a totally scientific and accurate representation of games quality. So I guess it's swings and roundabouts.

Of course it is true that Metacritic weights reviewers. However the weightings are consistent for a particular reviewer between games - whether they're Nintendo or otherwise. Now while this does open up the door for Metacritic to bias Metascores in some ways, they would have to rely on consistently biased reviewers (who they could then weight highly) to do this.

I guess I'll concede then that Metacritic could be biased - but I find it very unlikely that that's what's going on here.

Biased? Shouldn't you play these games before making such an assumption? Also, if this is true, then how do you explain Bayonetta 2?

Rodea should have gotten around a 65. It's not unplayable and the only things it should have got racked down for was the learning curve for the controls and the bad graphics.
It is certainly playable on the Wii U, just takes a bit to get used to.

Dude you seriously need to re-organise your priorities if you get offended by a complete anonymous person to you. I was on topic too. I shared my opinion, you challenged my opinion. Somewhere on the line a cluster of pixels seemingly has hurt your feelings and you started cutting onions. Get out more dude. ITS DA INTERNET. Not everyone here is here to bend to your whim or conform to your moral standards. I care about my family, not you (and try not to get offended over that, nothing personal but you're anonymous to me), and I will not change myself for you, good day.

-moded by axum

I agree with Devil's Third. It has some flaws for sure, but is not the abomination lots of reviewers say. Giving it a 4 or less is just wrong.

Does no one remember that Rodea is the game the designer basically told you not to play?

http://www.hardcoregamer.com/2015/11/09/even-yuji-naka-doesnt-like-what-rodea-the-sky-soldier-has-become/176430/

Why would you expect it to be good after that?

I think the headline is very misleading. It sounds like he doesn't like the game at all, when he's just saying "play the Wii version". But I don't know what was the point of the WiiU/3DS versions then. 

Headline aside, NO ONE should expect any sort of good review scores for it in this context.   It's a Wii U game being reviewed, not a Wii game.  And even if they did score it based on the Wii version - it's only a bonus with first prints. It would be extremely misleading to anyone that got a 2nd print though at this point it seems unlikely there'll be one.