GoWA can change that.  i hope it can pull up to at least an 82.

And i dont think it is alright for MSFT to only release two games a year either.  Read through my recent posts.  I dont feel like explaining it again

Its close to the final score though man. But yeah, proceed xD.

(Gee its like some dont know how meta works :P)

"Close" That doesn't mean anything. I was also close to getting a job this year,but I didn't.

Who cares about metacritic? Are they important or something? A bunch of nerds posting reviews, or trolling reviews?

Seems like something Nicholas Cage would frown upon.

And Ascension is close to 81-82 and it likely wont even get that. Im sorry but that's kind of the situation :(

Actually that is not a bad list or a bad average score at all....so me personally, I don't see the issue here. What were people expecting like something in the high 80's or 90's? A lot of those games don't appeal to me but they appeal to others. Heck my son loves the LBP: Karting game and Playstation ALL STARS(me too the game is pretty fun). So what if the game doesn't get a freaking SUPER high metacritic score, metacritic is DUMB anyway. Reviews from everyone and they grandmother count. Random sites that NO ONE knows bringing scores of games down...and also boosting others up. And people use this as a level of whether a game is good or not? Why not PLAY THE GAME YOURSELF and decide FOR YOURSELF if the game is god or not. I miss the PS1/ps2 days and N64, dreamcast etc days....when all that mattered was whether or not YOU liked the game not what EVERYONE else thought.

Reading through this thread I saw a lot of MINE IS BIGGER/BETTER than yours, people changing where they stand(throwing sales around, or calling things a waste of time/money, complaining about why one system sells better in one place than another, complaining about one system not making games for years or caring about their fans). Just a lot of hot air being blown around for SILLY reasons. Come on people we have GOT to do better, you be the judge of a game and if you don't like it fine that is your OPINION and is not a fact by any means.

Anyway sorry for the long rant and poor scores or not I am happy Sony is releasing constant games and trying new things whether they are successful or not....just my two cents

What about the Ratchet & Clank: Collection? That released late 2012 and has a score of 83.

I haven't read the God of War Ascension reviews, but every other God of War is the exact same yet they've all got high scores. However, watching the first 30 minutes of gameplay Ascension and seeing that it's more diverse with amazing graphics, I don't see why this one shouldn't have got overrated review scores as well.

But yeah. I'm not really a fan of God of War, but Ascension looks better than God of War 3 to me. Here are some major changes I've noticed that are for better with the series. The climbing. Ever since the first God of War, the climbing has been nothing more than a specific part of the wall which Kratos slams his blades into and scales the wall. Ascension took after Lords of Shadow, which uses Uncharted's method of scaling locations. Another noticeable change is there is no quick time events which is a welcome change.

So having played the rest of the consoles games and viewing the first 30 minutes, my view of the game in comparison to the others is favorable. Obviously this may or may not be my opinion after playing it but my notion is it will atleast be as good or better. Like was mentioned earlier in the thread. Sony probably isn't paying them off so the score isn't 10/10 everywhere.

About the topic and OP's post, how is an average of 70+ mediocre and bad?  

I do want to say Twisted Metal is amazing. Aside from the poor netcode which killed whatever community the game may have had, the game is a masterpiece and one of the best games this gen. My personal favorite Twisted Metal followed closely by Black and 2.

*edit*

Besides.  Whether a game is good or not is entirely based on opinion.  God Hand and Brigandine Legend of Forsena are great games.

God Hand's 3/10 review from IGN.  http://www.ign.com/articles/2006/10/10/god-hand-review

Brigandine's 3/10 review from IGN.  http://www.ign.com/articles/1999/03/05/brigandine-2

Here's a review from Gamespot in which the reviewer focus' half the review comparing the original Wild ARMs to Final Fantasy 7, spouts out misinformation about the title, then spends a two paragraphs bashing Wild ARMs 3 for not havinig voice acting and still having random battles.  Coincidentally, just about every RPG released that gen didn't have voice acting and had random battles, and many were highly praised.  The game did get a 7.5 which is a good score, but the entire review was just poorly written with the constant bashing of the original with comparisons to FF7 and being attacked for not having features that other RPGs during that time frame also lacked.  Coincidentally, while it was a different reviewer, Suikoden 3 which has no voice acting and still had random battles received a 9.1.

Wild ARMs 3 Gamespot review.  http://www.gamespot.com/wild-arms-3/reviews/wild-arms-3-review-2895567/

Sometimes you'll come across a review like Yakuza 3 which recieves an 8.5 and how the reviewer saying how much of a fan of the series he is playing the rest of the games.  The exact same reviewer reviews Yakuza 4 and gives it a 6.5, stating that the game is too much the same as its predecessor.  From the review and how much he's bashing it left and right, you'd think he hated the series.  If you were a fan of the first two, then what happened to the game being the same when you reviewed Yakuza 3?  Infact.  Yakuza 4 is more different from the series than the third one is since you play as four characters who play fairly different from one another.

All that being said, different reviewers are going to have different expectations on what should be done and rate it based on those opinions.  Or if you are to look back at that God Hand review, maybe the reviewer took a personal vendetta against the game because he sucked balls at it or maybe he legitimately disliked the title.

The only thing scores should be about is whether there's the possibility of it being a good game.  With how the review industry is, if it's a 7/10+ then more than likely it is good or atleast decent.  If it's 6/10 there's the possibility it's still good, but 6/10, even though is a good rating, is a bad rating with the way scores are being passed around now.

Ascension hasnt had enough reviews to be at a 79.

27 reviews.  It isnt going to change much from this point on