Cause anything below 90 is considered terrible apparently

Yes, I'm disappointed. I was expecting a 45-60 in meta.

Imo, no matter how great it is, it should get low scores due to lack of originality. I think the console industry is in a serious rut and if reviews keep giving 20 year old games 9's, it's going to implode in on itself. You should be punished for releasing the same thing over and over again imo and this goes for MK, COD, Halo, Uncharted and everything else.

If you're in your 30s like I am, you've played MK before...like, 8 times before.

95??? For a cart racer? Um, no. 93 is highest possible that genre. Besides, it has a lot flaws. A character roster littered with too many koopalings and babies, and lacking important characters such as Diddy Kong and Dry Bones. A lackluster battle mode. Missing online features. And other small details. 89 is a reasonable score.

No 90, no buy.

Battle mode is apparently more important to people than many realized. The REALLY low scores were also people who weren't won over by MKTV, which plays an integral part of the game.

Besides those two, I didn't find any other criticisms justifiable from the hours upon hours of gameplay I've seen.

Gaming has been relatively unchanged in form for long enough now that many sequels lose points for not "evolving" the genre rather than for problems with quality.  With that in mind, I think anything around the 90 mark will be an excellent score for any long standing franchises that seek to refine a formula as opposed to inventing new game-play options.

Agreed. With such a franchise you can't reinvent the wheel...just refine it. Hence you'll never get the "big" scores for breakout hits. 

Doesn't mmean the game is any worse though.

How dare they! Better start a new IP with exactly the same stuff, just a different name and different characters!

Why has nobody else thought of this before? Oh wait...