That actually makes a lot of sense.

In the US a 70 is average, in the UK that would be a great result. I do not think anyone ever got above a 90 on papers or exams there.

different in AUS

i may be out of touch now but when i was around at school.

50 = PASS
60 = CREDIT
70 = DISTINCTION
90 = HIGH DISTINCTION


roughly.

Anyway sorry to say but now days anything below 90 some gamers won't touch lol.

50 is what you get for your game being generally functional, not completely ugly, and a somewhat reasonable length. 50 is "passing" and "passing" means playable.

But, it really doesn't matter what the scores represent, as long as they're reasonably consistent.

I haven't used review scores to influence my purchasing decisions in years, I prefer to watch developer videos and read about the games during their development, the direction the developers are taking it etc... I also pay attention to what the developers refuse to say, which can also be very telling.

I simply don't trust reviewers enough to not give a candid and unbiased review, which is also exacerbated by the fact that no two review sites use the same metrics. Never mind the fact that it also assumes the reviewers tastes reflect my own, which is unlikely.

Here's a possible solution: Rate games on a 1 to 5 scale, or a letter grade scale. The only issue I see then... is how Metacritic will still interpret reviews on a 100-point basis.

That's because there are too many games. Why play only "good" games when there are so many "very good" games out there?

One of my favorite games this gen is roughly a 62 or so on metacritic.

70 may be average, but even then it still isn't a grade you want to bring home to your parents. I don't think I've ever been okay with getting less than an 80. Likewise -- the lowest meta game I played was a 78.

I do! Just about every Dynasty Warrior gets a 50-60 score and I get them regardless.