No, you most definitely did not get me right -- I was dismissing the argument that you could only appreciate some of the mediocre Wii third-party games if you played them by logically extending that approach to the vastly stronger lineups available on other platforms.
Huh? You could
appreciate a game, mediocre or not, only if you have
played it. You cannot appreciate games you have not played. You may hold arbitrary opinions of them (just like your 'weak wii 3rd party lineup, vastrly stronger linups on other platforms'), based on what somebody else said of them, or based on a whim, but that's just that - opinions based on no experience with the game.
Having said that, your opinion of reviews and player's time is clear enough - people use reviews to gauge the potential enjoyment they'd have from individual entries from an otherwise vast set of offerings. Herein lies a fundamental issue, though - what reviews does one trust? If a fellow gaffer said that games X, Y and Z are worthy of your time (if you're into the respective genres, naturally), and that opinion contradicts with what some review site said of those games, do we discard said gaffer's opinion? What if said gaffer could provide a cohesive backup of his opinion, because, just imagine, he's played those games?
I was actually supporting the concept of relying, in part, on trusted critical opinions to weed out the truly must-play games from the ones that aren't really worth your time until you've exhausted your backlog of the must-play games. The list of third-party Wii games is incredibly weak because there's nothing essential on it.
How do you know that?