This image will forever be my greatest tool in this discussion and I think it's spot on.

THANK YOU! This is the type of image I would put in my OP

Go ahead and add it then; it illustrates your point very well. For the record; I have been of the same mind since the early 7th gen and have also been quite vocal about it in here.

Awesome, thanks! I haven't always been vocal about it but it has been in the back of my mind. I'll go on a site like SputnikMusic where they treat a 3/5 quite well, unlike say IGN where a 6/10 is pretty much written off by most of the community. And the games they give 6/10 are frequently actual 4/10s. An 8 is pretty much the placeholder score for any AAA game on Gamespot

I'd agree with you if the cut off period was last gen. But I've never seen reviews more harsher than this gen, sometimes very unfairly in their quest for "next gen gameplay" as well.

That's how the scores are interpreted by most gamers though (sadly) and not how they are given by reviewers.
After all last year's GOTY only scored between 85 and 89.

It's their own fault if they don't touch anything under 80 (or 70). They've been spoilt too much.

It seems to me that developers/publishers used to have a thicker skin or something. Games aren't getting any cheaper, and the industry as a whole is trying to be taken as a more serious form of entertaintment rather than just a children's hobby. So this kind criticism is absolutey necessary. It's not harsh, it's just more straight forward cause it needs to be that way.

And we deserve quality product. Should we buy that's generally regarded as mediocre or plain bad? That's entirely up to ourselves, but we can't say we weren't warned.

Yeah, we are the real elitists, which is sad. I've found many gems in the "low" scoring gaming section. Dark Messiah of Might & Magic, for instance. And I've found dozens and dozens of overrated games in the "awesome" category as well.

I have stopped depending on review scores for my purchases a long time ago and when I do read reviews; I foucs a lot more on the text itself rather than the actual scores at the end, which are often very inconsistent with the actual phrasing of the review itself.

A few years ago I never even read reviews before I bought a game, I would just buy the game if it looked interesting; I was nowhere close as connected to gaming media as I am now. Games like Schizm and Syberia that got absolutely shit on were enjoyable to me. To this day, I am not sure if reading reviews and judging a game by its score is a gift or a curse.

I absolutely agree that a score below 80 does not mean a bad game. I bought DOA5 about a month ago because it looked interesting (hehehehehe) and it is one of the best fighting games I have ever played.

Agree about the review scale of "professional" reviewers, it's currently totally f***ed up.
About personal scales, it depends, if one carefully chooses games, a higher average score is quite normal, I do it and my scores are usually high, except when, in a way or another, I've been ripped off, in those case my score becomes merciless. But if one buys a lot of games, even those barely interesting, then the average score should be lower.
My fav scale was the one used by PC Zone, they clearly explained that a game with score between 70 and the low 80s could be either a great game with some forgivable flaws, or a flawless game, and good or very good in its genre, but not good in an universal way, not able to attract fans out of its niche.
Only excellent games under every aspect got more than 90, and amongst them, only the small minority of masterpieces went to 95 or beyond.
And for games that had a low score due to technical flaws, they sometimes made months or years later a new review with a modified score if patches had solved the worst problems.
They also made bargain edition games reviews, where lower price could turn into good value and higher score games not really bad, but that at full price were a lot less attractive, and scores could also drop, if games very hyped at launch, so hyped to hype harsh reviewers too (sorry for this calembour), hadn't lived up to their hype and hadn't become classics.