All movies are technically watchable from beginning to end, guess all of them should score at least 70.

...Okay, I know that's not the best comparison. But still, functioning properly should be the bare minimum, and 70 should not be the bare minimum line in a 0-100 scale.

If I'm being totally honest, I wish performance/glitches and stuff were rated separately from the game itself. So something like Cyberpunk 2077 got a good score on PC because it's a good game with few technical issues, whereas it had a "bad" (55-65 range) score on consoles because it was a good game filled with glitches and crashes and issues everywhere. I'd much rather there just be a score for what the game is, and then a score for its performance, which could be different between platforms. Anyways, that's just me, and it ain't happening, so whatever. Main point is, game scores are too high.

Either way this whole debate starts out of Metroid Prime's metascore being slightly lowered by one "bad" review from possibly the only professional reviewer who doesn't see 7.5 as a bad score. In the end it sits at a 94. It used to sit at a 95. The original had a 97. How does this matter? I don't think any of those numbers are undeserved for what the game is. All of them suggest that it's one of the greatest games ever, which it is.

Most of all, the game got a competent review from IGN, not something like any remaster/remake can get lol.

I'm still sobing of cries and laughs from the Xenoblade Definitive Edition IGN's review. Could possibly be one of the most unprofessional review ever done by a vg critic honestly. 

Though, IGN tends to accumulate them so it isn't as noteworthy as before.

Actually I think there is a *major* difference between Sterling and Yahtzee, because Sterling is mostly bitter these days and actively is looking for shit to be pissed off about (they made *two* videos supporting Helena Taylor despite all the red flags because it reinformed their general stance about everything is shit and had to made a third video in which they are pissed out about Taylor). Yahtzee on the other shits on games and devs regularly, but keeps overall positive, not bitter. And therefore can even find fun in games, recent datapoint: Hifi Rush.

To the topic at hand, I haven't played the game yet, as I wait for physical version in europe... But I am very excited.

Actually I think that should prevent the lowest score (whatever it is 0 or 1), but not much else. But there is a bigger problem with review scores, and that is, that many reviewers give points for some technical stuff like graphics, music etc. But I think all that stuff is just icing on the cake. If the cake is good, it can get better with icing, but if the cake is burnt all the icing isn't saving it. And that is the problem, many games already have earned 5 or 6 points, before the question is asked if the reviewer even *liked* the game. And many big publishers can invest enough to get all this stuff right, all the icing part, but the game itself is still a turd. A well-polished turd.

I think all the technical stuff should move the vote only a small amount from the major decision made based on the question: Do I want to play the game if not paid for it?

I don't know that I'd call graphics and music "technical", given that they're literally art, but anyways. Personally I disagree with this a lot. For me, graphics and music are a huge part of why I like or dislike a game, and definitely should be considered alongside gameplay and story when it comes to scoring them. One day a friend invited me over, when I walked through the door he was playing Hades, the music was kicking the most ass, it got me interested in the game immediately. Another day I went there and he was playing Bug Fables, and maybe the music is fine for what the game is and catchy in its own way, but it just felt like, you know, typical video game music. I couldn't care less. So I don't think I'm ever playing that one. But anyways, that's me, of course I care a lot about music.

I think there's a pretty good example exactly here where we're talking about this, though. Metroid Prime. A game that has fantastic art direction and graphics, and a phenomenal soundtrack that is both moody and catchy. This applies to both the original and remastered versions. Both back then and now, the game was lauded for its immersive atmosphere, it's easily one of its best aspects and one of the biggest reasons it's a great game. Honestly, if you take it away, I don't think the game would be nearly as fun. The gameplay is... well, it's not bad, but really it's nothing to write home about. Controls were clunky on the GameCube, they're better but not flawless on the Switch, platforming works well but there's nothing particularly interesting or creative about it, combat is fine but is also rather basic. The level design, that was certainly revolutionary for its time, but it's not without its flaws either. Boss battles are hit-or-miss. I think it's still a fine game if you take away the music and visuals (and consequently the atmosphere), but I'd struggle to rate it anything other than a 6. Whereas the Metroid Prime that we have, I'd struggle to rate anything lower than a 9.

I have zero issues with a 'low' score for any game. People are entitled to their opinion. Personally I loathe GTA and find it awful. I simply don't think a game should be judged by non game related positions. How the original team was credited has zero to do with the game itself.

I am not saying that graphics or music shouldn't be considered. I say look at the whole thing working together instead of just the parts. That's the question: Did I like it? Graphic and music can be a part or even the main reason of why I liked it. I think Crypt of the Necrodancer would be much worse without the music or bad music. And yes Hades has great music. But don't start to look at the parts if it all is not working together.

Great release. Loved the original, and this is a good start to getting people hyped for Prime 4.

The outrage is over, it's now back at 95

Whew, I can finally enjoy the game again