I did. 8/10 scores were considered good. Now a lot of people consider that mediocre.
So, you're focusing more on the perception rather than the scores themselves?
Well, the image was clearly satire, but it has an edge of truth. There's the ideal of a 10-point scale with average in the middle, and then there's some people who perceive it as otherwise, believing "average" to occupy a point on the scale closer to the 10/10 mark than it is to the middle. Whether it's IGN or Gamespot or Jim Sterling (thank God for him), we typically see reviewers use the entire 10-point scale, or at least they do in principle if not in practice. A 5 or 6 out of 10 is usually considered "mediocre" to "average" on most professional reviewer score scales, while an 8/10 is supposed to be pretty damn good, though with some flaws.
But in the internet age and with the rise of review aggregators like Metacritic, as well as hyperbole-prone echo chambers and obsessive fandoms that have in the past gone apoplectic over games getting not-perfect scores (remember the "Eight Point Eight" controversy surrounding Twilight Princess?), there are some people that think review averages should be treated like school grades, with a failing grade representing 65-70% of the scale. Many gamers are very unforgiving, and apparently think any game that doesn't score high enough on Metacritic to be GOTY contender is mediocre at best. There's a disconnect between what review scores are and what many gamers think they ought to be. And it's quite frankly ridiculous, because we get people saying they cancelled their preorder of "Highly Anticipated Video Game" because it got a Metacritic average below 90.