Because it's true. Less than 70 is a bad score and it means that you are going to enjoy that game only if you are a fan of the saga

the only score that really matters is your own, the rest are just other opinions...

because if mobile and indie games get easy 7's, the rating for AAA games should start that high.
You cant just say I had more fun with indie game x so its better than AAA game y, because thats not a review, thats an opinion.
reviews should be purely objective and state facts.
The problem though is that reviewers now are not journalists, they like to think of themselves and celebrities and opinion leaders and sacrifice objective comparisons while making subjective jabs at other games.

I made a thread a while ago illustrating my theory as to why a game with a lower review score can, and often are better.
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=172249&page=1

My momma smacks me when I get a 'C'. Those developers need a smacking.

The first part is a lie.

It's not that games rated 70 and below are bad, they're just not worth our time when much better games are out there. You're not going to settle for mediocrity when investing $60 and upwards of 10 hours of your free time.

Where I am (London) its

90-100=A*
70-89= A -/+
60-69= B-/B+
50-59= C-/C+
40-49= D-/D+

Anything below 30= F


This is generally how I look at games, although my A bracket starts closer to 80%. Most games I've play are between C- and a B+. Very few warrant an A.

lol. When my total score for school is in the 60 I'm happy as hell.

btw we don't work here with letter scores. Just straight to the point numbers. 

From what I remember, my high school grades were based on the following:

E 0 - 49%
D 50 - 59%
C 60 - 69%
B 70 - 79%
A 80 - 100%

So a D grade was a passing grade.

Like others have posted, it's not that 7's are bad, it's just that there are so may 8's or 9's that make playing the 7's not worthwhile.

It's two different descriptions.
50% average is a rating comparison along a bell curve
70% average is a rating of the game's quality and proficiency.

The clearly retarded point being that if one year has a lot of top games, then the 50% scale actually reduces score, despite being a higher point average.

For example:
a scores 70 points
b scores 80
c scores 90

The 70% average says a passed, b did great, c did excellent
The 50% average says a underperformed, b passed, c did great

Now in another year
a scores 40 points
b scores 50 points
c scores 60 points

70% average says all did poorly.
The 50% average says a underperformed, b passed, c did great

going along with the scoring only being above 50 for the most part. It also comes down to most game developers don't release things that are so unplayable. So you won't be seeing scores so low. How many different ways can you call a game bad/unplayable/broken and a cheap cash in?

now do I play games below 70? sure. I read the reviews and see why things get market down if it's something that won't bother me while it's a game that interest me I might check it out.