I don't think you understand how metacritics work: They aggregate scores based on a number of reviews. You can argue with they methodology to convert some of the rating systems to percentage, but they use the same methodology across the board so it does not matter when comparing games with each other.
I would agree, but it's almost all games for the PS3 and Vita. If you want to talk about the absolute best console out right now for game, PS3 is kicking so much ass it's not even funny.
Of course ideally you should find a organization or specific reviewers whos tastes are similar to yours when making decisions about games, but linking one site's review of a game as reference to quality is much worse imo than a average of many.
They use the same shit as Rotten Tomatoes.... Means nothing. It's a broken , highly manipulated system.
If you add the 'can also be played on PC haha' close, you will lose Plant vs Zombies: Garden Warfare and Titanfall, but it's true that the PS4 would lose most of its indies (except Resogun, Flower, Sound Shapes and Zen Pinball 2).
Plants and Zombies isn't currently on the PC..... My stipulation is as of today. Also at least those games are new, and not old ass rehashed PC games they just stuck on the PS4.
Unfortunately the opposite is true, metacritic is held in pretty high regard by game publishers according to stuff i have read on gaf over the years.
You say that but its the site I go to, as many of my friends, to see if some random netflix movie is worth a damn to watch. I could give two shits what educated critics have to say on the subject. Its a numbers game, bro. Statistics. You listen to one critic, you basically listen to his tastes. You go to RT or Metacritic, you get a general sense of what the true trend is because of statistics.
KI had 10k people watching the Finals at so cal regionals last month, and they didn't even announce when the finals were going to happen due to scheduling change.
Or you could read the synopsis like every other normal person ,and decide for yourself...