RedEyesBlackGamer said:
Then fix your system. Seriously, you just admitted that game scores are hopelessly inflated for Triple A titles. You shouldn't be insulting a user for pointing out something that should be the case. Record of Agarest War got scores in the low sixties but was considered an average game. Oh, so triple A titles have to get more than that? Talk about a bias.
It's not "my" system. But it is "the" system, and the fact is that any triple-A game that puts up an aggregate score (from sites that matter) of under 85 is a critical failure. "Lesser" games can get away with it because expectations are lower or because they're aimed at a more specialized audience that will put up with flaws to get a particular type of gaming fix, but big-time, mainstream releases need to score at least in the mid-80s - at
least - to be considered a critical success.
Don't act like this is some deep, dark secret. This is the way the system works. And as long as that's the case, insisting that 50/100 is an average, middle-of-the-road review score will get you laughed out of any serious conversation on the matter.