Was talking about this as one example. An example as one piece in a larger problem that expands past one website.

Not to mention bad games get good reviews because of a brand name like Final Fantasy XIII. Bad game, good score because of the brand. With the most recent Dragon Age. Very mediocre still won GOTY over Bayo 2. Then take into account game reviews stopped being actual journalists with a degree to do a job. You can listen to the Giant Bombcast how it used to be. They had a giant written guide on how to review games properly.  Certain phrases came across as unprofessional or vague so were not used. Reviews had more integrity and guidelines how to write something well. Anyone with a pulse now can write a review and most of them are terrible. Most review sites sound like fanboys writing them up and often poorly written. Some purposefully give higher or lower scores based on personal bias.

Meta is a fucking joke. Slant Magazine exists to lower scores on games. If you truly care about reviews then listen to the bombcast and how much better reviewing used to be structured. https://www.giantbomb.com/shows/the-hotspot-episode-362/2970-20253

I don't take anyone seriously when they use Meta as an argument when Meta is part of a joke that is games "journalism" of the modern-day. The ones that can't beat Doom unless put on Easy or could not get past Cuphead tutorial or the ones that wear sponsored Fall Out 4 pipboys and then criticize other websites for giving it a 7 instead of a 9. WHen someone is fired over giving a game a 6 because the publisher paid to have the game advertised all over the website. This all happened. So yeah they contribute to those meta scores.

I didn't say you were wrong about the 360 being a western dominated brand. I'm referring to your claim about "take away Japan" etc. THAT is what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter. I mean we can make the same argument for the 360. I could say if it wasn't for the US, the 360 wouldn't have been close to PS3 in hardware sales. I think it's asinine to make arguments like that. Japan is one of the largest leaders in marketshare for gaming. So is the US. North America is the only continent that Xbox 360 beat PS3. Btw, I'm from Cleveland, Ohio. I know how strong the 360's dominance was compared to the PS3. It wasn't even close. PS3 lost that hands down.

So it is a rating of a single person and NOT a meta-rating.

Only strenghens my argument that a cumulative rating system out of many ratings is a much better indicator about the quality of games.

And where is the huge list of hidden Wii gems?

I only know the software of PS3 which is 999.4M. How much software did X360 sell?

What about the rest of Europe besides the UK?

I never promised a list. I just said there are hidden gems. No point in list wars on forums. I loved all three systems and they all had hidden gems. You are just trying to goad a list to dismiss it. You don't want to see them. You want to dismiss them if I did list them. It's a classic forum tactic that is lame.

Also, it hurts your argument as you ignored everything else and thus being obtuse. You just want an argument. Look elsehwere. You're wrong. End of.

Eh, I own all three consoles and I'd pick Wii's library as the best of the three.

That generation taught me a valuable lesson; Metascores are useless to me. I've thoroughly enjoyed games that scored in the 60s or 70s and despised games that scored in the 90s.

In terms of sales, it's effectively a tie. PS3 sold between 1-2 million more hardware units. Xbox 360 sold about 34 million more units of software worldwide. In terms of profits, I'm pretty sure Xbox 360 won. Xbox Live isn't free, and I'm pretty sure Microsoft took less of a loss on hardware the entire gen.
Xbox 360 outsold PS3 in North America. PS3 destroyed the 360 in Japan. PS3 took victories in Europe and the rest of the world over the 360.
So saying who won involves different factors. It's an impasse.

Blu-ray won.

I'm talking out my ass but I feel like Blu-ray never really caught on like DVD or VHS.