I know the kind of person I am.  I've made due with the quirks that have sneaked their way into my ways of life.  I am a very, VERY, picky gamer.  I use the same technique with games that I use with the food that I eat, the places that I go to, the wine/beer/alcohol I drink.  I like "THE GOOD STUFF" - and for the most part I stay away from games that don't deliver on this prestigious level of quality.  But is this a worthwhile way to approach gaming?  Should a gamer stay away from games that don't recieve 9.0s all the time on principle alone?  Or is it ok to substitue a 4 course meal for a central park hot dog...or a simple slice of rays pizza -- to enjoy something that's far from perfect, but delivers on a core area of what we gamers feel is "great gaming"?  Let's postulate.  When spiderman 2 (the game) came out, it didn't review really well (Score: 7.2).  The gameplay was fun but repetative, the swining was fun but quickly tiresome, and the fighting system was pretty flat.  Hulk Ultimate Destruction would improve on most of the elements from this game (no contest).  After reading up on the game, I just figured "eh, not for me...I like the 'GOOD STUFF', and looked the other way.  Then I saw that my best friend from college (who is a nintendo fanboy and a GC owner) had the game.  Despite hating the little silver nintendocube...I figured "what the hell, it's here" and plunked myself down in front of my friends tv screen. 

It was dark outside by the time I turned the system off.  My eyes were a little worse for the ware.  Overall, I was truely surprised.  Here was a game that didn't review well...that was certainly flawed in some respects...and really didn't expand on anything we've seen in the gaming world.  And yet, I was having a blast as spiderman; swinging all over the city and beating up thugs.  It made me wonder: "should I stop being so critical and just look for games that will be fun...not just revolutionary??  Are the games advertised as being "unlike anything before it" really that amazing in the end?"  

I know what you're thinking: ''It's spiderman...that's why it was fun".  And that's not a bad point.  If this were a generic Action-Adventure game with a nameless cable swinging hero, this game might now impress nearly as much.  But it was fun...really fun.  And in the end, maybe fun is more important than super-particular tastes and an extreme taste for games that are new/different/unique and so on.  If games were all the same price...one price across the board...maybe this questions would be even less important.  But developers need to focus on the fun so that we can focus on the fun...not the review score.  Making a game fun CAN make it revolutionary and unique, since the number of bad games out there doubles daily.

In thinking about it...top shelf games will always catch the eye.  But I think we should give those middle of the road games some attention...because we may be suprised of the experience that they can deliver.