He gave the game a 7.5. Big deal. Not everybody is wowed by the childish artistic style and gameplay. And even with that score, according to GS standards, it's still a "good" game. Nintendo fangirls are the worst!

This all just makes me want to impose a literacy test for the Internet. No pass, no commenting.

I really wanted to adress this issue in the comment section, so I'm commenting before reading the article, which I am going to read.
Meta critic is absolutely part of the problem. By aggregating review scores from different people, they give the numbers to much weight in and of themselves. Numbers which do not correlate to each other, and I am not even talking about how a 4 means an 8.
Lets take 2 different people, who are rating the same game. Reviewer A gives the game a 98, and reviewer B gives it a 78. You would think that reviewer B hates the game, right?
Ah, but you see, reviewer B actually liked the game quite a bit. To him/heroes, a 78 is an above average game worthy of praise, while 90~100 are reserved for groundbreaking experiences. Reviewr A, however, believes any great, well made game needs a 90 or up, or else it simply dosen't make sense.
The point I'm trying to make is, different reviewers have different beliefs of what the numbers they use represent. One persons 90 is another persons 80, and that's before readers get involved. So how is an aggregation of unequal values logically representing the games in question?

Calling them consumers implies they bought the game in the first place, which they didn't. Metacritics User Reviews has become a gathering place for trolls. At least with popular games.

too bad "game critics" are fanboys too. i wouldnt put it past people to lower a score just so their savior game like skyrim could beat it on metacritic. which if you look at skyrim on all 3 platforms and average it out, it doesn't. whats funny is that skyrim for 360 is averaged a 96, while the PC version is a 95. that alone tells you how screwed up the system is when the pc version is superior to the console version in so many ways

metecritic only became big because microsoft used it as a way of saying their system was better for games than ps3.used to shout from the mountain tops.

but when sony caught up with them and produced better quality games and received more industry awards from critics,gamers,and the industry as a whole,then metecritic became worthless.but thats how it has gone this gen.with microsoft opening their mouth and sony closing it.it's just the truth.

but zelda receiving a low score is just it being a casuality of the american media that microsoft controls.and has followers from different websites that continue that control.

lol what kind of sheep buys a game cuz of its metacritic score hahahaha. I your doing that then your simple not a gamer.

Until the gamers stop the "my game is better than your game crap" it's always going to be like this. seriously Ive never understood the need to put another game down just because you like to play something different. I also never understod why so many "gamers" are so closed minded, why can't people just admit that Zelda is an awesome game and that Skyrim is also an awesome game.
why must gamers take shots at other games just because it's not what they're playing. Sony makes good games and so does Nintendo, why take sides and talk shit about one or the other you're not getting paid by the company so hop off their nuts. Reviews have just become another way for fanboys to "1up eachother" and nothing more. Real gamers will go out and see for themselves and play what they enjoy. They don't need someone to tell them a game is good for them to like it and they don't need their thoughts on a game justified by a number.

I always knew I was the problem, I just didn't want to believe it...

Skyrim proves the way we review games clearly must change. Averaging 96 on metacritic yet it is incredibly ugly, and riddled with bugs. Is it worth a purchase? Absolutely, the bugs make the game all that more hilarious, but it's inexcusable from an objective standpoint in which the numerical system is based upon for its score to be so damn high.

I believe the numerical system should be scrapped for a non numerical Day One Buy, Bargain Bin, Rent, Fans Only, and Ignore review system.

uUC3 WONT WIN GOTY CAUSE THE FUCKING METACRITIC IS 92 , LOWER THAN THE OTHER CONTENDERS

It is really quite simple. You do not empower those whom did not purchase the game with the ability to score/rate the game. The online open user scorring system is too open. It's like letting everyone into E3, too many people who have no business being there. If you want solid reviews/scores from dependable souces that actaully experience the titles they play and know what they are looking for, a screening application proccess is in order. Otherwise Timmy who usually plays UFC and FPS games will score games like Shadows of Collosus, Katamari and Beyond Good and Evil as substandarnd, uninspiring boring and dull games.

Oh, and a good portion of the media critics ARE a problem.

This is a great editorial, and something everyone should seriously sit down and read.
Rus, you nailed it and speak to everyone, journalists and consumers alike. Wanting a game to be good, and blatantly jumping on board with average reviewers doesnt speak to the very nature of an individual critique of a title.