I didn't know summer began in March, but I see why you'd start there. Showing chance and improvement would probably include, I dunno, past data? That's generally how you show change over time. If you simply say "things used to be dismal" and show no evidence of statistics other than a cluster of recent data, than you're not showing real change. You're showing what could very well be a coincidence. I doubt that the recent upswing in Wii ratings is just a coincidence (developers are finally giving the Wii some respect), but for all we know, it could be.

When I mentioned that crap was bringing down the averages for the consoles, I gave attention to outliers. Both the PS3 and 360 got the Leisure Suit Larry game, which scored way lower than anything on the Wii. Things like that skew the data because from what I've seen myself, that one game is much lower than any other games released recently on the HD consoles (even Damnation). I'm not trolling whatsoever, and I don't see how you expect "better" from me. You barely even know me. Maybe you've seen my posts, but for all you know, I could be a three-eyed goblin. Point is that there needs to be a broader range of data for comparison.

I have another problem with the interpretation of lowest and average scores: Metacritic doesn't even compute a score with less than 4 reviews.
That means that really bad games that critics aren't even interested in reviewing won't contribute to the average, whereas games that are not as bad, but for some reason catch more the eye of the reviewers will.

An example is the latest Leisure Suit Larry game that was reviewed by many sources because it happens to belong to a very famous series of games, with dismal results (21%/25% on PS3/360). On the other hand nobody cared much about "Battle Rage:mech combat" on the Wii, so it has only two reviews, both of them are 20% but they don't contribute to the average.

All in all, this means that the higher end of the spectrum has some statistical relevance, and shows that the Wii is getting some good games. But the lower tail and the average suffer from arbitrary filtering of the data, and can't be given any serious relevance.

I'm sorry, I thought I made it clearer. I took the current "What's New for ___" list for each console which is the list of the most recent reviews; in this case it represents all games reviewed between the first of March and today. The results are for this period alone.

I did not imply or mean to imply that there is anything  like equality since launch. I started by saying that things used to be so dismal I couldn't even stand to look at the ratings.

The intent was merely to show improvement, not to dismiss the long and painful history of crap games.

Oh I see.. sorry I didnt read the open post completely

good point were kitten.

How exactly is it suprising that Tiger Woods have best scores on Wii ?
Golf games with motion control is pure win no matter how you look at this and what you belive about MC in other genres :)

Ok, I can see everyone is obsessed with Leisure Suit Larry, and it did in fact stink so in the spirit of fair play, we will remove it from consideration.

It scored 15 points lower on the PS3 than the lowest Wii Game (Ready to Rumble). 15 points divided by 30 games = .5 points so that raises the PS3 to 70.2

Larry scored 11 points lower on the Xbox 360 which divided by 35 games is .3 points so that will raise the Xbox 360 to 68.6

This is of course meaningless because this is not about pretending that Metacritic scores are some kind of exact measure. And do I really need to go back a year to prove that this is improvment. Dismal Metacritic scores in the past are very familiar to all Wii owners because we have been beat over the head and had our faces rubbed in them often enough to know they sucked.

Nor is this an attack on the HD consoles which have enjoyed a fine quality of games. I’m too old to be any kind of “boy”, fan or otherwise. I have no doubt that the HD scores will soon go up, beat the Wii scores and restore the balance of the universe. Geez, don’t be so defensive.

@ MontanaHatchet.

My apologies, I do not know you. I meant compared to your postings which have generally been very insightful, balanced and of good quality.

PS: I am a three eyed goblin so I hope that wasn’t  personal.

No problem Grampy. It just seems like a bad stench of hypocrisy when Nintendo fans switch back and forth between hating and loving reviews when it fits to their advantage. I know in your case it was humor, but other times, it's a tad annoying.

Nobody does.