Given some of what I seen of the game (just watched, haven't played) but what the top review says about it being "one of the Xbox ones best action games" I think would really make you question the quality of the consoles other offerings if you happened to pick up a Re:Core bundle with the X1 and thought... that was one of the best offerings.

But yeah to say some reviewers were harsh to it... but in such masse is a really strange path to go down, I mean if it was that 1 negative review that Uncharted 4 got or something completely away from the norm I would understand... but the majority of reviews are in the "meh" category, not bad... but not great either.

Most people praising it like platformers and good platformers are rare nowadays. They are dying as we speak... 

Ganoncrotch said: But the game has a metascore of 63% based on 68 different reviewers, who is the clickbait review site in this instance? The 47 mixed reviewers who are responsible for it having the 60%ish meta score? Or the guys giving it 90% claiming it is mixing Megaman (which ones) and Metroid (the 2d games? The prime series?.... pinball? federation force?) perfectly, even admitting that the platforming game has camera issues and loading problems yet still gives it a solid A 90% rating. But sure.... some of those 53 sites who didn't score this game a positive score were looking for clicks >.>

Well it appears to be that being on the average is being clickbait when we want

Nah, bottom line is he thinks reviewers were harsh on ReCore. He said they knew the game wasn't perfect and they would have done things differently if they started from a scratch. Nothing wrong with saying this and plenty of people who played it agree. Then he noted about clickbate reviews and used Forza as an example. And that leads to this nonsense debate hehe.

You act like you never saw Phill doing these kind of things.... reviewers were harsh? Maybe, but I hardly see that as done with ill intent against this particular game, they simply didn't like, similar situation with The Order... and in this case there are hardily any clickbaiting on the low range, but probably on the high end, still he pretends like that is a serious issue in this case. It's all to try and defend a game that wasn't very good to begin with.

We had even in this thread several guys that are seriou that said they liked the game but they see it as an 60-65 game perhaps 70 at most. So the average 63 is quite on that, and so a 40 is less clickbait than the 90 that was showed.

Yeah I've seen him slip out something silly sometimes but overall I like it how he plays his average joe role and gives interviews. I'm sure most people still aknowledge he's a CEO and his job is to make money and sell his product and take his words with a grain of salt. Then there's some people who see jabs, spins, butthurtness and shit like that in everything he says, kind a like those religious people listening to heavy rock records backwards thinking they hear a hidden satanic message heh.

I read that interview and didn't really see him making a serious issue about anything. He was asked a question and he answered that he thinks reviewers were harsh. That's the way he sees it and/or wants the game to keep selling, so what? Some gamers in this thread think it scored lower than deserved and some don't.

You act like you never saw Phill doing these kind of things.... reviewers were harsh? Maybe, but I hardly see that as done with ill intent against this particular game, they simply didn't like, similar situation with The Order... and in this case there are hardily any clickbaiting on the low range, but probably on the high end, still he pretends like that is a serious issue in this case. It's all to try and defend a game that wasn't very good to begin with.

We had even in this thread several guys that are seriou that said they liked the game but they see it as an 60-65 game perhaps 70 at most. So the average 63 is quite on that, and so a 40 is less clickbait than the 90 that was showed.

Yep, it would be ok for him to say the reviewers were harsh and that he thought the game was better than the score suggest (and we can pretend not to hear he saying sales are very good, because in this department he lies a lot and that is expected of his position) but to say that some of those were clickbait because they are below the average is silly since the scores above the average are % more away than the ones below.

The thing is, I am pretty sure at least half of the negative ones were unwarranted. The game was a solid 72, not a solid 62... 

Both have clickbait. To think the negative ones weren't sounds stupid...