I don't know about that...

Games shouldn't be immune from criticism because they're upfront about their flaws. 

..."bombed"? It hardly bombed, it just didn't rate too highly.

If you like Kirby this game won't disappoint.

But again, a game's difficulty isn't a flaw outside of the aforementioned scenario, it's part of the genre.

No it's not... Kirby is a platformer, so was Ghouls n Ghosts. The genre doesnt dictate difficulty. It's also extremely easy to fix - Add difficulty levels. Because there is a simple solution to this, it is absolutely OK to criticize Nintendo for not integrating it.

But for some reviewers/consumers the flaw might be built into the genre. I get where you're coming from, but I'm reluctant to absolve a game just because it accomplished what it set out to do. 

Then every Kirby game of the past should’ve been docked due to this notion of the game being easy. It’s been the nature of the mainline games for over 20 years. Why the disparity between something like Kirby’s Epic Yarn and Star Allies? And Epic Yarn got almost a 90% despite not being able to die in the game. You can’t go off on scores alone. It’s a factor in its success but it should not be the end all, be all, personally. Im sure there are many hidden gems in all consoles that gotten scores below 75, which is not a bad score that some claim it to be.

the scenario is this

When metacritic/rankings aligns with their opinion of something they hate/like = its relevant and is gospel 

when the opposite is true, then it means ''its useless and no one cares about it''

the endless cycle. its stupid either way

Basically the 73 sounds about right for the score based off my experience. "Good" but not outstanding or even that great, especially in single player. The biggest factors for me that brought it down a bit were the complete lack of challenge for the vast majority of the game (think I died like twice in my entire run), the short run of the campaign, and the lack of excitement compared to having multiple people. It's not like the game was broken in any way, it just didn't really go above and beyond in any areas either. Kids would probably enjoy it more, especially if they're playing with another person, but that doesn't mean it should feel lacking for teens or adults which I feel it was.

For my money, most reviewers seem to overate games in general - it's almost as if many are factoring in only the 5-10 and ignoring the first 1-4. I try to keep the first 4 pts in mind and truly rate on a 10 point scale. Many *cough Ign* seem to consider and 8 only "good" while a 7 should actually fall under good.

I don't have a problem with the score it got but anything above 70 is still "good". Maybe if it where the big multi-million dollar budget 3D Mario/Zelda game of the generation, a 73 would be a bomb, but that's not what this is lol. It's your run of the mill 2D Kirby game and it certainly won't be the last one you'll see on Switch either. I wouldn't be surprised if a new Kirby game comes out for Switch as soon as next year or early 2020.

Kirby is an easy platformer, and the developers dictate genre. Why should they strive to make every game challenging n hard when there is cleary room for easy accessible games aswell? Difficulty levels are always good yes, every game that doesn't have them should have em, that's a fair criticism, but criticising the default/intended difficulty isn't. We don't need every game to be difficult, just like we don't need every game to be a shooter, so that shouldn't be seen as a bad thing.

That's more a difference of taste than a flaw then. I'm not saying Star Allies doesn't have flaws because it most certainly does, just that difficulty isn't one of them.