I always view 50-74 as a "for fans only" when it comes to videogames.

I miss the official UK Dreamcast Magazine. They really did use the full 1-10 scale. Granted I don't think they ever rated anything below 2/10, but if they gave a game 5 or 6/10, if it was your type of game, it was usually still perfectly acceptable.

Hell, they gave Gauntlet Legends 4/10 and I loved that game haha.

People seem to get way too fixated on metas now. I see "awww I was really looking forward to that game... I guess I'll pass/wait for a price drop" when a game "only" gets an average of 73%. Along with the fanboy (of other consoles) hollers of "ZOMG BOMBA HAHAHA!"

You'll also often find behind these 75-80% meta scores, there are plenty of 9/10 ratings along with the 6/10 ones which bring the average. People act like it's all 75% ratings from every outlet.

So would you rather play a game everyone rates 8/10? Or a game 75% of people rate 9/10 and 25% rate 6/10? Which one is the better game?

I actually think the bigger problem now is that so many of these reviews are given by people who don't actually know what they're talking about (see number of criticisms of Sonic Lost World being "too slow" when it was clearly the reviewer hadn't actually figured out there was a run button). You're better off getting impressions of games from people you know also have similar tastes.

As for 70%... hell every single student in the UK would love to get that mark on their degree, it gives you the highest possible degree ranking (First with Honours).

Video game ratings are so terrible. A 5 should be average, yet most games get a higher score than that. On IGN's most recently reviewed list, there are 12 games. The lowest is Flappy Bird with a 5.4 rating. Also, games rarely receive perfect scores. So why have them? No game is truly perfect, but if it's amazing and fun to play, then why not just give it a 10?

Video game sites rate on a 5 point scale...
<5 (0, rarely given out)
5 (1)
6 (2)
7 (3)
8 (4)
9 (5)
10 (5, rarely given out)

Because I dont want to spend $60 on mediocrity and wait for it to come down to a $30 or so price range before acting on it if at all.

I do not waste my time or money on games less than 80% review score average on metacritic or gamerankings. I usually only play games with averages rated 85% or higher and a genre or series that I like to play.

Actually, it's because most reviewers rate on only half the scale, between 5 and 10, except for extreme cases. So a 7/10 is actually a 4/10 if you were to scale things more appropriately.

Last time I checked PS3 games on metacritic the median value was at 72 or something. Which means:

65 - 80 average
80 - 90 good
90 - 100 excellent / master piece

which sucks, I think it would be nice if it was more split like:

50-60 meh, but at least worth playing
60-70 okay - solid
70-80 good/totally worth playing
80-90 very good
90-95 excellent
95-100 masterpiece

Gamers are like Chinese parents. Anything below A+ is unacceptable.

In my world A= 80+, B=65-80, and C=50-65. I don't think it's to do with a comparison to school grades, I think it's purely because reviewers give 90+ scores out like candy, mostly to games that don;t really deserve it. So when a reveiwer gives a sub 70 score you look at the games he/she has given 90+ and think, "well if they gave these ordinary games 90+ then a 70 game must be shite.