I hear what you're saying and agree... Infact I really don't care much for AAA scores and will play a game if i like the concept/demo. I can't stand half of thsoe AAA games cause they are not my type of games.

But I was bored, and something like this is cool to see... which games got the "nod" from the industry.  :)

Metacritic represents a variety of opinions. To be honest as more opinions come in, the value tends to get closer to the average value placed on a game by the gaming community.

People will get upset when their game of choice is lower rated than another one that is simply human nature. Metacritic is not perfect but Metacritic is the closest thing to the average value from the gaming community.

lol, I wish I had the patience for that... Maybe tomorrow when im not so tired...*yawn*

This is a good list great job disolitude it really bring it into perspective.

Its not about getting mad that a game has a lower rating.  Its about trying to use opinions as facts.  In this case, as you said, Metacritic is a guage of a grouping of opinions.  How is that any basis of guaging if a game is 'AAA' quality?  As someone else said, an AAA game can be stated as the games where a company put their most time and money into.  So let's take the example of New Super Mario Bros Wii.  It wasn't panned by Critics, but just because it doesn't have a 90 avg on metacritic, its now not an AAA game?  Yet it was clearly one of, if not the top offering from Nintendo in 2009 and hardly anyone will dispute a top quality game with AAA written all over it.

Long story short, opinions, even that of 'critics', shouldn't guage what makes a game 'the best'.  Or in this case, 'AAA' status.  It goes right back to what I was trying to say about 'AAA' status just being a major grey area.

I think reviewers are too easy on games these days. Some of those games are nowhere near the scores they earned. Mostly all good games, but scores are way too high.

I don't like how reviewers are letting technical issues slide this generation. It is like they are all accustomed to it now and all of a sudden it is "ok" to give us un-finished games. The scores of the games should reflect this.

This isn't just professional critics though. Lately it seems to be taking over players as well.

which ones do you think shouldn't be there today?

I usually look at reviews based on the timeframe when the game came out. I mean, I doubt Gears of War would get 94 average if it came out today...but back in 2006, taht game was the bees knees. Rockband and guitar hero game won't make many more AAA lists but back in 2006/2007 they were really revolutionary with their online modes, song DLC...etc

Otherwise most of those seem like they belong on that list IMO.

Well, it is, and it's something you need to get over because it isn't going anywhere.

Exactly.

There will always be people who like a lower rated more than a 90+ game, but contrary to that you'll find much more people liking that certain 90+ game more than the lower rated game.

Many Metacritic naysayers don't understand the meaning of the numbers. The scores are not 100% correct, but they give a very good hint at the games quality and how many people with a couple of years of gaming experience would like it.

If you're for example not a fan of racers you most likely won't even like the highest rated racing game, but that's not the point, because your subjective feeling of racers completely destroys your objective rating.
The average Joe on the other hand would certainly like the game and a fan of the racing genre even more.

Also reviewers aren't 100% right on everything, so there does exist a margin of error, however the more reviews you get the more reliable is the average score.

The Orange Box
Gears of War
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 1 and 2
Street Fighter IV
Mass Effect 1
Halo 3
Fallout 3

Aside from a few that I have mentioned all of these games have issues, but they seemed to have been given a free pass for some reason. Now I am not saying that these games are bad because they aren't. Except for maybe the CoD games. Too me it seems reviewers are now leaning towards the favoritism for a specific genre, series, or a specific console style of reviewing.

Seriously MW2 does NOT and is no way in the firey pits of hell a 94/100 game. Am sorry just no WAY.

Also for some reason people nowadays are considering 7 and 8 scores to be horrible. Absolutely atrocious games. Last I heard those were very respectable scores. With 5 being average. So if a game is not a 9.5 or a 10/10 it is automatically a fail game. That really irritates me. The number style reviewing system should be disposed of then.