Sales is the objective standard.

I see a lot of ps3/xbox360 owners saying metacritic is useless when a game of theirs gets a bad review. The fact is that metacritic is useless.Just like your pathetic attempt to troll on the wii.

Sales doesn't equate to quality. You can see this in every aspect of life.

I.E. there are wine tastes who taste every wine and can distinguish quality. Is the best wine the one that has the most sales? No.

Consider clothes. The clothes that sell are usually made of the cheapest materials. Does that mean those clothes are quality? No.

Video game reviewers play tons and tons of games. After playing a lot of gamesyou begin to get a sense of what's good and what's bad and what's been done. Each reviewer begins to base their opinions on their past experiences.

Take a game like Wii Fit. Chances are there's a huge group of people who's first experience into the world  of gaming was Wii Fit.

If sales relate to quality then someone who has no experience playing video games can have a better understanding of quality than people who have spent the past 20 years playing video games.

Of course I'm not saying Wii Fit is a bad game. I'm just saying that it's not as simple as game sales equal quality.

That surprises me, because I don't rate games that I find fun or great that low.

Unless you think 20 million gamers were the victims of overhype, or that they're idiots who have no idea what they like, Yes. YOU may not like something. Lord knows I don't like most popular games. And sure, I'll mock said games and say they don't rate at all highly in my book. But I don't turn around and say "this game you like is objectively bad."

I can't in good conscience do that. No one can.

You're wrong. There is one, and only one, measure of a game's worth: is it fun? In the final analysis nothing else matters.

Graphics, sounds, controls...they're nothing more than instruments in a song. Individually some might be good, some might be bad, but in the end we usually care about the music that they create. The only times we ever care about how that guitar or bass sounded is when they enhance or detract from the overall experience, but I've yet to hear anyone say "I really enjoyed that song a lot, and it all came together really well, but I bet that if I isolated and examined the percussion, rhythm, and bass separately, they'd only be decent, so I'm going to rate the whole thing down."

Even the enthusiast press implicitly recognizes this truth. Some places, like IGN, make a point of explicitly stating that the overall score is not an average of the sub-categories. The only reason anyone bothered to create these meaningless sub-categories was because some technophiles wanted to recognize that certain games are pure eye/ear candy, even if almost no one actually liked the game itself. It was nothing more than nerds drooling over the head cheerleader's hotness, even if she's a shallow bitch that no one can stand.

Long story short, why should we care about the trees instead of the forest?

I'll reply to you later noname!

I'm still waiting for my reply, Seece.

Sorry, I'll reply later

Noname, I admire your energy! Such replies in response to relatively short posts.

No...SMG2 will get 90%+ easily, and Wii fans will suddenly forget their hatred for metacritic.