How is going from around 80 to around 70 considered bombing big time? Seems close enough to what the other games got. Maybe its not the best kirby game ever made, but it looks just fine.

Kirby 64: The Crystal Shards for example got similar scores and epic yarn got much better scores, because of its pretty looks.

See, that's where I take issue. How can it be enjoyable by anyone of any skill level when some people have a lot of skills and thus, breeze through it in a few hours? These things are sixty dollars. If all I'm going to get is a relaxing, three hour experience where I die like three times, then I'm going to spend my money elsewhere and I'm NOT going to have an enjoyable experience. 

I love the aesthetic of Kirby games. It's very charming and whimsical but much like Odyssey, it's too easy for me. Nintendo has been gradually making most of their games (if not all) just too easy for people like me and I really wish reviewers would dock points for it so people would know before buying. 

How can something be enjoyable? Because it's fun, duh! Just because a person is skilled at games doesn't mean they can only enjoy challenging games. A few hours is a bit of an exaggeration, the previous few Kirby games take 12-15 hours to 100% while being very replayable, and only Star Allies is $60. Majority of the series is $30-$40 on handhelds. But going back to Star Allies specifically, content is the biggest issue with the game no doubt. Even as a Kirby fan I don't feel Star Allies is worth $60 as it has less content than it's recent predecessors yet cost significantly more. Still even as one who has plenty of skill, I have had a lot of fun with the game and have put in over 50 hours so far, but again I'm a fan. As this thread points out the score is lower than other Kirby games highlighting this issue (being lack of content, not difficulty, as everyone already knows Nintendo games generally run on the easier side).

I'd also add it will probably be the first kirby game I ever actually buy I actually like that its an easy game. Means my kids will likely be able to complete the game without constantly asking for my help

You must be new to this gaming thing.  The problem is a matter of perspective.  For example, there is a website that litterally scores based on 5 being average and 6 being abover ave, and so on up to 10.  The problem here is their score is added to metacritic, where a 7 is a ave/good game and so on, and drags thay score down.  Guess what, your way of thinking just kept you from enjoying a game you may have liked

because you are closed minded from lack of knowledge regarding how flawed the media is.

Then look at some of the overrated games out there.  Final Fantasy 13 had graphics and...yeah that it.  It had crappy plot, boring characters, and was fsr too linear for its own good.  Not to mention that horride battle system where you just mash autofight for 90% of all encounters.  BUT it got an 83 on metacritic so it MUST be at least decent right?  And here is a game you would buy and then be let down due to you lack of knowledge about how gaming media works.

Heck what youpropsose does not even make any sense.  If an 8 is average  why bother having 10 numbers?  A five star system would be more accurate on that case.  In the old days, 7 was (and still is) a good score.  6 is fair and might be worth playing to some  though a pass for most.  5 is horrible and anything below that is just a degree of how broken the game is.

So in the end, you are only limiting yourself by having such a closed minded view on review scores.  Just because you think a number means something does not mean the reviewer feels the same way, and that is the problem.  In a review based on what the reviewer believes your opinion on what the score means is absolutely worthless.  Think about that for a minute and let that sink in.

You answered your own question.

That's not what Kirby is though; no one is expecting a big budget 3D Mario/Zelda 9.5 to 9.7 game.

But it is Kirby, arguably the best co-op 2D platformer franchise of all time. It's one of the few 2D platformer (if not the only) franchises that has managed, over the years, to be a good experience for all the players involved while others - like DKC, Sonic, and NSMB Wii - tend to only be fun for one player involved at a time. A 73% game is not up to the standard of what fans of this franchise were expecting. It still matters to us that the first return to home consoles of a mainline Kirby game in 6 years is decent; 85% minimum, while a game worthy of an 88-90% score would have been preferable, and a 90+ would have been awesome.

73 isn't what I'd consider a bomb, yeah it's not as high as people expected but that isn't a bomb in the slightest.

73? Man, it tanked. Anything below a 97 is garbage, right?

"give or take multiple points." Not to mention, there are hundreds of games in the 75-high 80 score range. Are all of those critically comparable to each other? No, they aren't. Different games have different genres, different purposes, and different audiences. Just because their number is similar does not make them comparable.