It's like one of user reviews which stated "it looks better on emulation on my steam deck, this one runs like crap and cannot maintain 30fps" and gave it a 0.

It is annoying to see such comments based on deliberate false stuff just to be more visible.

When I was in high school, my Latin teacher decided that we all needed to do a presentation, and the students would give grades. And there was one guy I didn't like, barely paid any attention on the nonsense he was saying. And then I gave him a bad review. And the teacher decided to not count my review. And she was right.

Same situation here.

On another note, it's really ridiculous how people see 7's as bad scores in game journalism. Like if you go on Metacritic, sure, Sterling's score of 7.5 still counts as "positive", but as much as one decimal lower and it'd be yellow. Any game you play and say "eh it was fine" is an 8/10. Whereas for any other type of media, the same feeling would probably be a 6/10. All Sterling is doing is giving 7's for games they enjoyed. But since everyone else inflates scores so much, we end up with an infinity of games in the 80-95 range, and within that you have games of vastly different quality.

On another note, it's really ridiculous how people see 7's as bad scores in game journalism. Like if you go on Metacritic, sure, Sterling's score of 7.5 still counts as "positive", but as much as one decimal lower and it'd be yellow. Any game you play and say "eh it was fine" is an 8/10. Whereas for any other type of media, the same feeling would probably be a 6/10. All Sterling is doing is giving 7's for games they enjoyed. But since everyone else inflates scores so much, we end up with an infinity of games in the 80-95 range, and within that you have games of vastly different quality.

On another note, it's really ridiculous how people see 7's as bad scores in game journalism. Like if you go on Metacritic, sure, Sterling's score of 7.5 still counts as "positive", but as much as one decimal lower and it'd be yellow. Any game you play and say "eh it was fine" is an 8/10. Whereas for any other type of media, the same feeling would probably be a 6/10. All Sterling is doing is giving 7's for games they enjoyed. But since everyone else inflates scores so much, we end up with an infinity of games in the 80-95 range, and within that you have games of vastly different quality.

The difference is, whether you agree with Sterling or not, is that they are a professional critic who covers video games for a living. You don't have to agree with the review or the score, but you also can't disregard it because of that. Looking at the review itself and the conclusion, I think this line from the review matches the score Sterling gave the game quite well: Metroid Prime Remastered is a faithful beat-for-beat recreation of the GameCube classic with a comprehensively polished visual makeover. It remains a solid adventure shooter, even if its straightforward approach to player progress is a little unexciting these days.

Also, which part of the review is based on deliberate false stuff? I haven't played the game myself, so maybe there is, but I took a look at the review and couldn't find anything that stood out as false.

On another note, it's really ridiculous how people see 7's as bad scores in game journalism. Like if you go on Metacritic, sure, Sterling's score of 7.5 still counts as "positive", but as much as one decimal lower and it'd be yellow. Any game you play and say "eh it was fine" is an 8/10. Whereas for any other type of media, the same feeling would probably be a 6/10. All Sterling is doing is giving 7's for games they enjoyed. But since everyone else inflates scores so much, we end up with an infinity of games in the 80-95 range, and within that you have games of vastly different quality.

You may not be aware of that, but the overall average is in the low to mid 70s. On Opencritic the most common scores are 70-72.

https://opencritic.com/game/14280/metroid-prime-remastered/charts

Here you can see a graph with the score distributions with Metroid Prime Remastered being in the highest 1%.

You haven't done much to dismiss my point. Of course the average is going to be below 80, when it's an average for literally every game made. There's a lot of shitty games out there. Yet in spite of that, as we can see by the graph you posted, a majority of games score over 70 - the average score is roughly 73. So we have an entire scale that goes from 0 to 100, but over half of the games are occupying less than 30% of the scale. In other words, the scale is useless.

By the way, I had no idea this graph existed, it's really interesting and useful, so thanks for posting it.