oops, sry, forgot all about PC games. Seriously though, PC games dont hang with the big consoles when it comes to quality games unfortunately. PC is so scarce with AAA stuff I fail to remember any off hand.

Name me some if you can think of any, ill Edit the OP....

you are so right, how can I forget the worst games of all, liscense games and anual sports titles. Thanks for reminding me, I'll Edit it.

I only play AAAAAA games, cuz I'm a Surreal Gamer.

I had this great manifesto written that mocked your hubris, but for the sake of civility and discussion I feel it's best left unposted. Instead, I will limit myself to a simple question: who defines what is and is not a Mediocre Game?

So the fact that PC has much more high rated games than any other platform this generation means nothing?

What do you consider AAA? If it's quality-wise, then there's games like Crysis, The Orange Box, Company of Heroes and World in Conflict.

There are a bunch of great PC games.

^This.

the general public.

AAA: a game that recieves top marks (90+) and General public adores it.

AA: a game that might not have gotten top marks (80+) but Gerneal public adores it.

Mediocre: a game that has not satisfied the Reviewers or the Public.

REAL GAMERS DON'T AXE SUCH QUESTIONS. No thinking allowed, just check Metacritic!

last I heard, Orange Box is Multiplat, so it is not like you can only play it on PC. Also Crysis did not appeal to the general public for two reasons,1: it cost way too much to create a PC that can handle it, 2: it was not as good as some of the othershooters available on consoles such as COD4.

Company of Heroes is maybe AA but it is also MultiPlat, how many games can you name that cannot be found elsewhere?

And I did not purposely leave out PC, I simply could not think of that many games for PC (besides multiplat stuff).

Wait, but that definition doesn't help at all! Metacritic scores are made by a small sample of the general population (longtime gamers, almost always boys, who generally share the same narrow tastes). Using their opinions to measure what is and is not a good game automatically means you're excluding newcomers, kids, people over thirty, and the vasy majority of women. I'm certain you see why that's horribly unwise...

But that's a minor problem compared to the massive contradiction in your criteria. The only way we can know what games the general public "adores" is by observing titles' sales. So we're now confronted with several problems: many, many games that receive top marks from metacritic et. al. do not sell well (and are therefore no longer worth purchasing) and many many games that receive mediocre marks well brilliantly, but are judged as not worth purchasing by your standard.

Of course, this ignores the elephant in the room, namely the fact that we can't know what games the general public adores until we see what they purchased, but it can't purchase any games until it knows which games will sell!