Cerebralbore101 said:
maenthoven said:
Founder of OpenCritic here...
First, SF0 has 72/100
We have this on OpenCritic so that we can settle the "what is a good score?" debate once and for all. The average score across all games that are reviewed is roughly 74/100.
So Star Fox Zero is below average when compared to all other games reviewed.
The main caveat is the massive selection bias. The reality is that truly awful games just don't get reviewed. There are a whole bunch of games deserving of 1/10 and 2/10. But the reality is that they don't market themselves, don't distribute review copies effectively, etc.
But... There are roughly 70 games that have higher review scores that have come out in 2016 alone, and over 300 if you start to include 2015. If you were someone that just went in order based on review scores, and you played 1 game every couple of days, you might not ever get to Star Fox Zero.
I don't say this to discourage you guys from playing - "good" and "bad" are completely subjective, and I can't know for you. I'm personally going to go see the next Star Wars movie because I love Star Wars, and the reviews don't change that.
|
Exactly this. A game rated 70 is a good game, but there are so many other *better* games out there, that you might as well not bother with the 70's.
|
While playing games that are in the seventies is not something everyone is willing to do, you never know till u try these games that are within the 70 range. From what I know, Earthbound, for example, was not as well received and beloved back during its initial release as it is now. It took some time for critics and fans to truly appreciate the game before it became cult status. A lot of games that are within the 70 range are considered hidden gems anyway so..
