Maybe Resident Evil 6

Well that's a hard one. Theres been too many average games. How does one answer this? One game is resident evil 7. So much potential, achieved a level of unseen greatness , but only for limilted time. 

Mass effect 2/3 another one. Halo infinite, bayonetta 3, getaway 2, driver3, mgs5, devil may series after the original. The list goes on

Final Fantasy 16. Absolutely, the most bog standard game a game can be, despite having some cool visuals, characters and story moments but even by the end even those become average. The game itself has to be the most average experience ever though, none of it is good but none of it is exactly bad either, it's all just so perfectly average.

Recently I’d say Dragons Dogma 2. It was a sequel I always wanted as the first is one of my favourite games. But the problem is … it’s just the same experience as the first, it doesn’t do anything new or better than the first and after all this time with the open world setting been overdone to death it didn’t differentiate itself enough. It’s not a terrible game, but feels so safe as a sequel it felt like I had already played it. I can’t hate it but I also can’t come to love it like the first.

That’s an exceptionally odd take about FFXVI, since pretty much everyone acknowledges it has insane high moments, which are then usually followed by some completely mundane fetch quest. It’s probably one of the most uneven video games ever made. It’s like you’re describing a completely different experience.

Nintendo World Championships: NES Edition. I absolutely love the game, but it is extremely middle-of-the-road imo.

The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom

I agree with him tbh, nothing about ff16 really stood out to me.

Magical Starsign. RPG released for the DS. Finished it once and the only thing I remember about it is that it was ok. not bad enough to quit playing, not good enough to return to or 100%. The music was fine, the graphics and art style did not upset, the story was... there. It was all around nothing that stood out neither positive or negative.

I thought about it, and this is a difficult question to answer. At least not without some kind of reason for playing the game, for example - a game like Streets of Rage might be the perfect thing for me to play today - style, flash, and simple beating the crap out of people while progressing - or it might be the last thing I want to play for a variety of reasons.

Despite what Metacritic and such may make some people believe, there is no linear scale by which videogames can be measured on. Aside from situation, perhaps even mood, taste also accounts into it: for people who are great memorizing, have good problem solving skills, and a creative spark, Dwarf Fortress may be the best game ever - however, those who lack that will likely see it as garbage. I’ve come across this in Xenogears before where some describe the story as “convoluted” or “esoteric” and claim it’s a bad game - but that’s only because they’re not able to process such a large story, maybe they don’t read larger books, or have an academic background; but none of these criticisms are true for people who do have those skills.

Some people love repetitious experiences where they do the same thing hundreds of times and get better and better at it. Maybe it’s a game involving good twitch reflexes.

There are also different games for different needs. For example, if someone is in the mood for a quick round of gaming, they might pick up a casual game or play a few levels of TMNT or Super Mario Bros 3. If it’s an evening with a half hour to an hour free, it might be a game like Castlevania or Romancing Saga. Or with more time on the weekend with a desire to experience a bunch of story or deeper experience, it might be Xenogears, Witcher 3, Crusader Kings, or one of the more story focused Final Fantasy games. And the reasons for liking a game like Witcher 3 might be entirely different than those for liking a game like Crusader Kings.

But really, the point I’m trying to make is that there isn’t really such a thing as an average game unless you have some kind of objective scale of measurement. Changing the parameters of the scale means different centers. And most gaming fans probably don’t think of games in such shallow terms - subconsciously at least, as a lot of gamers do buy into the Metacritic paradigm even if they realize it’s not really accurate to their experience - and what I’ve explained above is why that is.