Yes, you failed to understand. The complaint was not about the score <90 but about the relative scores, ie. TW2 score < DA2 score, when DA2 is incredibly boring to play.

But the Escapist review is the prime example of what you called "bad explanation". He didn't even play the game. So not a good review.

it is good too know that there are more stupid people and smart people, feeling less competition

the 50+ low scores range from 0 to 3 :P that is trolling of the highest degree. if this game is worth only 3 out of 10, there are no gamers higher than a 4 :P sometimes i wish troll reviews can be voted on and repealed :P

Metacritic and Rotten Tomato are shitty sites for scores for two major reasons for me. The first is, you can't turn something as subjective as entertainment into a mathematical equation of averages that somehow comes out to one absolute. The second is, they're giving out grades instead of "if/then/but" statements that work toward determining if something holds merit, fails, or excels compared to what we typically consider fitting for it's type/genre/game mechanics/whatever.

In principle on Meracritic and Rotten Tomatoes everyone is a critic and all reviews count. In my opinion that is flawed as a 13yo morally challenged kiddo's option that states that "Witcher 2 is gay" (no offence intended to homosexual people) is counted the same as that of an educated, mature individual who spent his/her time reviewing the game and getting their facts straight.

As for turning the subject of entertainment into a mathematical equation, people do it for one reason alone... money... because $40 from a 13yo morally challenged kid is worth $40 from an educated, mature individual and it is this specific purpose that those sites ultimately serve...

"Boring" is a subjective thing.
How do you know that the majority of people should find Witcher II more enjoyable to play than Dragon Age II? How do you prove your assessment?

By that same token, how does anyone know that champagne would be more enjoyable to drink than toilet water?

At a certain point, the disparity between two things is so great that it's generally accepted that one is better than the other, regardless of the subjective nature of opinions.

Just look at how much the Friedberg and Seltzer movies have made. *shudder*

That doesn't mean that things can't be objectively bad, though. It just means that large groups of people are stupid enough to pay money for things they know will be objectively bad :)

I was agreeing with you. It's just sad that such shit can make so much money. Especially Avatar.

My bad. Wasn't sure if you were agreeing with me or challenging the "generally accepted" part of my post by providing an example of garbage that has made millions.

More on topic: reviews are dumb, numbers assigned based on a general impression are arbitrary, and anyone who buys into those numbers deserves whatever kinds of games they end up with. Those who can think for themselves are perfectly capable of finding quality titles apart from reviewers and user reviews, so I wouldn't fret the troll zeroes or occasional low critical marks.

And so game footage and Lets Play gamers became the future of pre-purchase knowledge throughout the land, and though there was the unfortunate spoiler here and there, it was still good.

I pay no attention to metacritic score anymore because one day I saw Bioshock listed as the RPG with the highest metascore on Steam (and it still is).

So considering DA2's raging success, and considering how many people completed it and enjoyed playing it - even if they were annoyed by the re-use of content and the obviously rushed game - wouldn't you say that the generally accepted bottom line should be that it was a good, if flawed, game?

I'd call Witcher II a good, if flawed, game, btw. ;)