As Bodhesatva has already pointed out, you would first have to demonstrate that review scores were an appropriate metric of the quality of a game before you can really use them to argue that the quality of Nintendo games is drecreasing because they have received lower review scores. Although there are just as many problems with using it as a metric, you could use the raw sales of Nintendo games to argue that the quality of Nintendo games is increasing ...

Personally, I think the poor reviews and high sales of many games on the Wii as a sign that game reviewers are focusing their attention on elements of a game that gamers (on the whole) find unimportant. An example of this is local multiplayer, a game being really enjoyable when playing with a friend on the same system seems to be an unimportant feature to a reviewer but seems to be driving a lot of game sales.

Man, a real Wave Race game (not WSR) would really make my year complete.

Thank you for the feedback. Now I offer my rebuttal.

First of all, sales data, is a quantative statistic that does not necessarily reflect a game's quality. For instance, I'm sure Carnival Games and Barbie Pony Rider DS sold a million copies but does that mean they are considered great games?

Of course not, but by taking into account an aggregate of reviewer scores, which is a qualative statistic that is designed to reflect the quality of a game rather than a mere sales figure, I believe we can come closer to approximating a game's quality.

Don't get me wrong, the reviewing system is far from perfect. I think Grand Theft Auto 4 is overrated as well as other games. I just think that using an average of all major reviewers is the closest we can get to the general consensus on the actual quality of a game.

Wow... Noname and Bod said pretty much I could think of saying.

Still, there's one thing.

Quality differs from person to person. You cannot use one way of rating games. What gamerankings/metacritic is, is a way to determine the quality of the games, from the "hardcore" perspective.

As Nintendo is slowly leaving the hardcore world, it is natural that from a hardcore perspective, Nintendo will be falling on the ratings.

Unfortunately, there is no real way of measuring how good a game is from a more "casual" (as in general) perspective. The best way we can do it, is see how many bought the game.

Saying that sales equal quality is very stupid, but there's just so few opporunities to measure quality, that it is actually one of the best.

Wow... Noname and Bod said pretty much I could think of saying.

Still, there's one thing.

Quality differs from person to person. You cannot use one way of rating games. What gamerankings/metacritic is, is a way to determine the quality of the games, from the "hardcore" perspective.

As Nintendo is slowly leaving the hardcore world, it is natural that from a hardcore perspective, Nintendo will be falling on the ratings.

Unfortunately, there is no real way of measuring how good a game is from a more "casual" (as in general) perspective. The best way we can do it, is see how many bought the game.

Saying that sales equal quality is very stupid, but there's just so few opporunities to measure quality, that it is actually one of the best.

Why would people buy games they think aren't quality?

How about starting a family gaming site that has a rating system for games that ar reviewed by parents and children, then I wonder which games would be over 90% and which below?

Having a rating of 90% or above doesn't mean it's universally seen as a great game, it just means it's seen as a great game by a VERY few and select handful on a few gaming sites.

True, but Oyvoyvoyv's post correctly points out the counter-argument: sales are really the only way we have of judging what the masses think of a game, and in the end it is us, not small niche of game critics, that determine quality. The problem some of us have with your analysis is that you're using as proof of quality a metric that is apparently unable to grasp the value behind titles that are not exclusively tailored for them. It's akin to wondering why someone who's had an almost exclusive diet of pizza and hamburgers for several years won't immediately take to a quality meal of chile rellenos, or paella, or any other dish that is beyond his narrow boundaries.

And Oyvoyvoyv further points out the more universal truth: there is no single way to rate games. But when games continue to sell well, at full price, years after release, I think it's indicative that people see the title as having very high quality.

Of course, no one should be particularly offended that you think Nintendo's quality is going down: it's your honest opinion, and we can't call it wrong. On the other hand, as I said earlier, not all of us share that opinion. Even excluding their newer stuff like Wii Music (which is awesome, by the way), their sequels have been better this gen than last (in my, and many others', opinion). Corruption, Brawl, Kart, Galaxy...four sequels to four of the biggest franchises in gaming, and all are better than their predecessors (I believe).

I'll repeat what I said earlier; metacritic is increasingly worthless for judging Nintendo titles, and for the most part I'm enjoying even their traditional titles more this generation than in the previous two.

Just because aggregate review scores are the best metric we have now doesn't mean that it is a particularly good one, or that you can draw any conclusions from it ...

One of the biggest problems I see is just how meaningless review scores become over time. A game like the Legend of Zelda OoT would (potentially) still receive a score of 75% or better a decade after it was released, while the original Half-Life would (probably) only get a 50% score. Its not only long periods of time that matters either, a launch game for the Wii might have received an 80% but (because of how expectations have changed) the same game might only get a 65% today.

I would argue that if game critics actually did... well use a form of criticism rather then their own opinion they would be a better metric then game critics.

However with no accuracy it's really just a flawed process.  As they say in data fields... a wrong pattern is worse then no pattern at all.