Wow. What a weird mix of reviews.

Kotaku put up their review. They said "Not Yet"

WHY: Because the only impressive thing about this game's solo campaign is that the Vita lets you play it outside; after a few days of multiplayer against regular gamers, we'll be able to tell you whether this is a Yes or No.

Two Things I Loved
-The Auger still shoots through walls and is still one of the best weapons in gaming, whether you're using it or the enemy is.
-I could play this twin-stick shooter anywhere.

Two Things I Hated
-The squandered potential of making a game that purportedly stars a fireman but does almost nothing that's fireman-y.
-The boring level design, featuring clear-the-room skirmish after clear-the-room skirmish, with no interesting artificial intelligence or logistical twists or novel settings to make it more interesting.

http://kotaku.com/5913946/resistance-burning-skies-the-kotaku-review


Made-to-Order Back-of-Box Quotes
-"How much would you pay for a proof-of-concept?" -Stephen Totilo, Kotaku.com
- "Resistance is futile at entertaining me."-Stephen Totilo, Kotaku.com

Going by your definition and then checking the link I provided and glancing at the userscore with over 100 ratings tells me differently.

With Resistance you have some "Mixed" feelings in there (Since when is a 70 considered "Mixed" anyways? Isn't 70 positive?) where they even state that the multiplayer will keep them coming back to the game time and time again.

I take "Mixed" as being more on the lines of a reviewer saying "There is plenty to enjoy here, but it up to your preferences to decide whether or not this game is for you", which is why I find scores like this to mean it is "Love it or Hate it", especially since that seems to be the case with just about every videogame, although even more so with the ones that settle in the 60-70 range.

This is just going by my view on it though since my gaming history has plenty of 60-70 scoring titles that I enjoyed greatly, with Nier and SaGa Frontier being at the top of my list. Plus, we all know that gamers don't usually agree fully with the opinions of the media, which is why I am very wary of these "Mixed feeling" scores even more so.

I doubt the game is 2.0/10 material, for me you're talking the Burger King freebies to get that low.

Fair enough, I was just saying that mixed, from the tone of the reviewers in that category for lots of games, range from mediocre to average which, to me, means the game is mediocre to average, overall rather than love it or hate it. Although, for some reviews 70 does seem like a good score, but for a lot of the 70's I see I mostly get the impression that the game is only decent.

Both reviews say largely the same thing. The game works, but it wasnt fun for them to play.

That is the issue with gaming though. Nowhere else do you see 70 being considered as average.

Gaming tends to be the one medium where journalists refuse to use the 10 point scale properly. 

Yeah, exactly. I 100% agree with that. I've personally always had a problem with games mostly getting scored between 50 and 100 and then anything below 50 (whether it be a 10 or a 40) means the exact same thing: "don't get the game". It pretty much makes half the scale useless.

But that makes sense when you consider that anything below 50 is an F. Hell, in most institutions anything below a 60 is an F. Additionally, plenty of video games are nearly flawless so why would you ever spend time playing a mediocre one?

Then use a letter grade system instead. Its not about matching academics, anyway. It's about making use of the scale.