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. |
Thanks for all that info.
I actually wasn't referring to OpenCritic in my statement. I just meant that I thought it was silly how on MetaCritic, if a game gets a 74/100, it's yellow, meaning ''mixed scores." To me, a 74/100 indicates generally favorable scores.
What you said about how 74 being the average is interesting though. It is a shame that different review sites use different scales in their reviews so it's difficult to consolidate them all. For example, IGN uses a scale where a 6.0 is 'Okay', 7.0 is 'Good', 8.0 is 'Great' and 9.0 is 'Amazing.' Most other sites would scale a 6.0 as being bad, not okay, so it's not clear how to compare the two. I do appreciate your efforts to try and accomplish this however.
