Current Events > Is 70's really considered a BAD score for games now?

(+) Yeah! (+)

People are acting like Callisto protocol is the worst game ever but the reviews are in the good region lol

It has always been a 'meh' score.

It's used to dunk on a game on gfaqs. Like we all are supposed to hate sonic here for some reason so the 70s frontier got was omg super bad, lol!

Then when the pokemon games got lower scores something something the games are fun why do scores matter philosophy.

It's gamefaqs. Don't think too hard about the logic here. (Or lack thereof)

It's always been a average score which is bad.

I always consider in the 50s to be average, since 50 is usually an half of 100, so

coolpal23 posted...

I always consider in the 50s to be average, since 50 is usually an half of 100, so

Quiet you, that makes too much sense!

Being in the 70s range is just "aight"
Nothing ground breaking or abysmal. Just a game that fans of the genre will probably enjoy and a game that's worth playing eventually when it's on sale.

60s is bordering on slightly average/meh

And everything below is shit to really shit.

Callisto Protocol to me sounds like a game that's worth buying when it's half price and has all the DLC released.

People have been treating 7/10 like it's shit for a few years now, unfortunately. It doesn't make sense to treat a 10-point rating like it's a 5-point rating.

7/10 sometimes means that if it plays into your preferences you'll feel it's underrated and if it fails where your preferences are you'll say it's overrated.

I love a lot of 7/10 games. Even some 60s

To game critics and modern gamers it seems that much, but anything I score a 5/10 is average, 6 is good and 7 is very good. Just makes more sense that way imo.

8

point

8!

coolpal23 posted...

I always consider in the 50s to be average, since 50 is usually an half of 100, so

SneakyGoomba posted...

Quiet you, that makes too much sense!

But it really doesn't make sense when a majority of scores given are within the 50 to 100 range. A game has to be abysmally bad for it to fall under 50 and usually has game breaking bugs and even then that's pretty rare. So a 75 as an average makes total sense.

You can't tell me you're seriously regularly giving games rated 50 a shot because that's "average".

50 isn't average it's median

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I mean usually they are bad though. Heck with as generous as people are nowadays I consider 80s to be the new average. If I want a game to be impressive it's got to have at least high 80 or a low 90.

The only caveat to this is if you're talking about a score that was given before the developers made massive changes to their game because they have integrity and want to make a fun game.

Depending on who you ask even a perfect 100 is still trash.

dioxxys posted...

But it really doesn't make sense when a majority of scores given are within the 50 to 100 range

Those scores are silly, at least imo

51 and above are above average, at least to me

70, to me, is a good game with 1 or 2 major flaws. For instance, I'd say RE3make is in that range. It plays great, but there's a lot of cut content and it's too short.

I read reviews and ignore the scores

So like, did any of you actually go to school?

If game scores 70 ill prob still like it if I'm really into the game's genre.

If it a genre I hate (like racing or jrpg) I am not gonna enjoy it. Heck those can score 100 and I'm still not gonna have fun

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


...

Or... hear me out here... it's a fucking grading scale. Like how you were scored for performance in school.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/8/5/AAZsuhAAD_Pt.jpg

Game scores a bit inflated

people dont know how to use a 1-10 scoring system.

ironically 8 is the typical score for a mainstream game, and so a 7 would fall into subpar territory.

https://crinacle.com/2021/07/06/why-most-ratings-suck-an-analysis/

not on video games but just relevant to how people rate shit as a whole.

It has to do with the way our brain wants to naturally apply a logarithmic scale to numbers instead of a linear scale that would put 5 in the middle of the scale. A logarithmic scale causes the higher numbers to be "less important" and lesser valued. From a survival standpoint it makes sense when evaluating danger: one lion is pretty dangerous to your survival. Two lions makes the situation even more deadly for you. But the difference in danger between say, 93 and 94 lions isnt really much different: theyre both as dangerous as a whole hoard of lions!

Coincidentally, 3 is the closest number to 0.5 under a logarithmic scale of base 10, so its no mistake that to a lot of people 7/10 feels like the halfway point between a good score and a bad one: on a logarithmic scale, it literally is halfway

70 out of 100 indicates that something is good.

not bad, not great: just good!

coolpal23 posted...

I always consider in the 50s to be average, since 50 is usually an half of 100, so

If you scored a 50% on a test, you wouldn't get a C. You'd get an F. Your knowledge base would be so fundamentally lacking that you were missing at least half the information.

Likewise, a game getting a 50 should also indicate that it is very fundamentally flawed. 50% of the product being good is not a passing score.

the thing is a game is not in school.

if every game was an 8 the score ends up meaning nothing.

The best games seem to score in the high 70s/low80s. Games that score in the 90s always require caution before buying. You see that shit and mediocre at best gameplay is all but guaranteed, along with way, way too much time wasting bullshit.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/3/3/AAZsuhAAD_Qd.jpg

Ok yeah 50 is not even a decent score on metacritic for video games.

315 out of 319 games listed for the ps5 score higher than 50 lol.

Not even 70 is all that great for a metacritic score. 235 out of 319 ps5 games scored 70 or higher

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/3/4/AAZsuhAAD_Qe.jpg

Honestly tho I've been enjoying games that get rated in 60s to 70s. But I'm into their genre so I dont get picky and can forgive a lot of things that might put off other players . See that game Silt? I'd prob like it

Here are the only ps5 games on metacritic that have scored lower than 50 lol.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/3/6/AAZsuhAAD_Qg.jpg

Dark Void had a metascore of 59.
The game had some problems, but the jetpack sections were extremely fun.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

But that's not the average, when people generally don't even give scores below 50s (see above images).

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

It's funny that the game you used an example is a indie game but no... I've hardly played any triple A games in the past decade. I've played way more Indies.

Using user scores, generally my preference for 8s and 9s fits my taste well for not wasting my time and playing only the cream of the crop. If you like a lot of genres of games or have a lot of other hobbies, there's no time to be playing 7s or under unless they come from a reputable developer.

Also user scores tend to be harsher then paid critics for AAA games XD