Kirby Star Allies Bombs With Critics

[Lonely_Dolphin]

Jumpin said:

Shiken said:
73 is not bombing. 70+ is a GOOD game. 80+ is a GREAT game, and 90+ is a MUST PLAY game.

People have such a twisted and sad view on what these scores mean. Kirby did fine with critics, some fans just do not understand the concept of a 10 point score system (which is why it needs to be done away with because there are even critics that do not get it or abuse it).

If comparing it to other games, perhaps, but 73% stinks for a Kirby game. Historically the mainline franchise does much higher. Considering this is the first major console release in around 6 years, it should have done 85% at the least.

Pokemon is a critically comparable series to Kirby. No one would be happy if the mainline debut of Pokemon on Switch did 73-78%. Even if it is considered "good" by how the scale should be, most would consider it a bomb. Sure you'll get the apologists who try to suggest "How is 73% bombing? That's a good score." But relativity and expectation are everything, and a 73%-78% would be a bomb.

Basically, what I am saying is that with the "good" label, that is still below adequacy given the franchise; a mainline Kirby game SHOULD be nothing less than great. The first mainline Kirby game on home console in 6 years should be a must play; especially after the rise in expectations from the Wii era.

So to you, not as good as it could of been/not as good as predecessors automatically equals bomb regardless of how good the game still is. Thankfully most don't think that way as evidenced by the responses in this thread aswell as the sales of Star Allies being on par with it's predecessors despite supposedly being a "bomb" in comparison.