Because when Lombroso presented his studies about how phrenologic measures could lead to spotting individuals who were biologically bound to become criminals and psychopaths, nobody had the right to criticise this alleged correlation until they provided an alternative objective method to spot them?

It might very be that I think that there's no objective measure of such kind. But even that is behind the point, because the burden of the proof is on who advances the idea.

If you want to answer my question we might very well debate why I think that's a poor measure.

PS: also "commonly accepted one"?

Very well. We have (for better or worse) an established gaming media. There is almost nothing in the world that can be quantified as better than anything else except through popular opinion. And you can bring up all sorts of completely unrelated similes such as the one-time popular belief that the world was flat, we are talking about video games here.

The popular opinion of the gaming media has established that there is currently a set number of "brilliant" games out there on each platform. This of course does not preclude there being a large number of "good" and "great" games on those platforms. There is.

And the gaming media has highlighted them as well. Of course people such as yourself, and indeed myself, would be of the opinion that there are "AAA" games that have missed out on such a 90% designation. But our opinions in those cases would not be in the tangible majority.

Ok, I appreciate that we've moved back from the objectivity of those numbers meaning quality to the -obvious- objectivity of those numbers meaning that review sources A and B gave a game a certain review and hold various games in various grades of high esteem.

But you're not explaining your original position, nor answering the simple question:
"I would like to hear the logic by which Forza 2, GRAW 1, Geometry wars add more quality today to the 360's catalogue than R&C or Uncharted 1 or VC do to the PS3's."

Because that's implicit in the numbers you chose to "objectively" measure the quality of the libraries.

Your theory works off the assumption that the gaming media can be entirely objective in regards to many complicating factors. Certain genres get trashed very consistently through reviews, however. You see games that sell tens of millions not even crack 85 on the Metacritic ranking scale. The opinion of the masses being objective (which your theory requires as well) says this game must be one of the best made ever. In the end consumer opinion trumps critic opinion every time. This is why we get Transformers rather than Citizen Kane at the box office.

The gaming media is suffering from too much "in breeding" for lack of a better term. People who really loved the genres popular with gaming magazines flocked to be reviewers for them. As a result you get a hyper focus on a couple genre's, and a dismissal of others for entirely arbitrary reasons. This compromises the objectivity, and the value of it all in the end. Until we can see a direct correlation between people's buying habits, and game reviews then the entire system will remain suspect at best.

@Gnizmo

I have not (to my knowledge) said that the gaming media is entirely objective. Hence the designation "for better or worse." But as measures go, what else is there? Whilst there are certainly exceptions, I believe there is some correlation between reviews and sales. Take Bioshock for example. It had little hype in the lead up to it's release, but sold wonderfully on reviews.

Werekitten is simply looking to get into a fight with someone that's trying to defend the gaming media as entirely objective or legitimate, I've seen him do it before. But I am simply not that person.

He's an intelligent poster, who can see quite clearly what I am saying, and what I am not saying, but he chooses to ignore that line in order to try and discredit the former with the latter.

I really hate this whole "AAA" talk about games, especially as AAA is a term used by developers to describe a games production values as opposed to its eventually quality. Sure metacritic is a great guide when it comes to getting an good overview of a games quality but it should never be taken as any sort of absolute quantifiable benchmark (which you seem to agree with in your last paragraph). As I pointed out in an earlier post there are 3 games which despite being widely regarded as identical on both platforms still scored differently, most likely due to differing reviews by the respective consoles exclusive magazines. If Dead Space had scored 90/89 on the 360/PS3 as opposed to 89/88 I don't see how that could make it an AAA game on the 360 yet the identical PS3 game wouldn't be.

Another problem is that a lot of 360 XBLA games or DLC are given 90+ but I don't see how they are more benefical to the 360 than full games such as VC, Uncharted, Infamous ect simply because they score slightly higher when being reviewed under different conditions.

Also, the idea that it was once popular belief that the Earth was round is just a myth .

EDIT: Nothing personal against your views as I appreciate you're only saying that metacritic is the 'best' guide to a games quality which I largely agree with.

I won't lament the poor form of speaking indirectly of me when we've been speaking directly, or of trying to second guess an hidden agenda in what I say...

Oh, wait... :)

Joking aside, let's go to the beef. I have certain ideas about how good reviews are in giving any individual indications about the quality he/she will recognize in a game. And I have some technical ideas about how meaningful it is to use aggregated scores. But that's not what I put on the plate, really.

For a second let's substitute the problematic term "quality" with "critical reception", and let's say that we're talking of what the reviewers' community thinks.

My question was formulated in that way for a very specific reason. There are games that might score very well when they come out, or in the context of what they are, and yet the value they have in a library is not written in stone nor that easy to compare with different games.

The value that Forza 2 had as game per se in the eyes of a reviewer is one thing. The value that it adds to the lineup is another, and certainly changes once Forza 3 comes out and obsoletes it. I'm sure reviewers would agree.

The same can be said for smaller, cheap, short experiences that you can download on PSN or XBL. They are rated for what they are, but certainly not in the same scale as retail games. I'm sure reviewers would comfirm that.

What this means is that even if you are talking of critical opinion and not the grand concept of quality, your method is not consistent. Because if you went out today and gathered in a room those same critics that rated those games in the context in which they came out and were priced, they would probably be horrified by the idea that the total value of a library might be quantified by counting those scores over a cutoff.

I frankly expect that when asked about it they would do the common sense thing: talk by genres, see what value a gamer can find today on each platform per genre, find the weak and strong point of each.

Okami, Wii Play, Wii Fit, Game Party, Mario Kart Wii, Mario Kart DS, Metroid Prime 3, Carnival Games, Game Party 2, Wii Music, Demon's Soul and that is just going for absolute rather than relative. Super Mario Galaxy should have sold much better on a relative basis.

I can see your point with regard to context. But again, I see some validity in the critical reception measurement. And it's not just me. The big 3 have all at some point referred to Metacritic as a measure of their games in one way or another.

You cannot completely debunk aggregate reviews as a measure of game quality or library quality. I a world where personal taste is removed, it is likely that the average consumer would tend to find a large quantity of high quality experiences on the PS2 for example, in line with the critical reception it's library received.

Nice to see PS3's numbers get a nice bump. X360's numbers could/should hit 30 by Fall next year i think, but to have 24 AAA titles is an awesome feat. Nintendo hasn't hit doulbe digits?! That's very surprising to me, and i guess i can blame that on reviewers that just debunk a game for Wii, based on the fact it's...Wii...so that stinks, but i strongly think the New Super Mario Bro's will change that figure to 10.