There was one good remake this year: Rachet&Clank

When was the last time you saw a major game release get a 1?

There was good remake this year. Your face after I rearranged it. Nerd

not if youre honest

...

Was going to mention that one myself if it hadn't been already.

He's got a point. The rating scale has been so fucked that a five-out-of-ten might as well equate to "bad" and not merely "average" in the mind of the average consumer.

When I was in grade school, granted quite awhile ago so who knows what commie shit they've injected into the curriculum now, a 50 was a failing grade, a 60 was a failing grade, a 70 was a passing, but awful grade, an 80 was okay, a 90 was average and 100+ was autisticall good

Basically a 7.5/10 should be the bare minimum in my eyes, ratings wise, but game review sites are all shit anyway so It's really a moot point

is that hotwheels as a wimminz?

I suppose it depends on what sort of value you attribute the vidya rating scale with. Do you take the numbers at face value, where a 5/10 is "not bad, but doesn't do anything that great either", or where the flaws bring the rating down, but there's enough pluses that even at "decidedly average" there might still be an audience that can deal with the issues and ultimately enjoy it? Do you take it as more of a schooling grading scale situation, where a 5/10 is a failure? There's also the inflation issue in general: Customers seem to consider 7-8 a cut off point for what they're willing to pay for (admittedly there is some logic in that, between two similar products, why pay the same price for lesser perceived quality), and as such, ratings get inflated to the point that a lot of middle of the road stuff winds up at sevens or eights, making a category that might be "pretty good, but not great" into a new "average", with most of what falls below that being considered bad.

Hell, even with the idea of it handling like a school grade, there's the issue of who's doing the grading and the fact that they can easily be influenced to score a game higher or lower than it ought to be. Paid reviews to bump scores up, purposefully not playing the game as intended to score worse for whatever reason (not being paid enough?), etc.

It was shit.

I think this is a common line of reasoning, but it makes little sense for a number of reasons.
In school you're being graded purely on how much of the material you understand. In this case 70% is a reasonable baseline, you can't seriously expect to pass someone who only gets half the answers correct.
Video games (and other media) are primarilly being graded on percieved quality and implicitily in comparison to their contempories. For 70 to be a logical cutoff here it would have to mean that there are vastly more terrible games being released than good ones (this is true, but the bad games still get >7 in most cases). At the moment review scores mean basically nothing, infact, I'm often more interested in looking at games that get 5 or 6 since they can often be interesting and fly by braindead reviewers.

I'm actually really attracted to crippled girls. I don't know why.

Part of it I suppose depends on where you're looking for opinion and just what sort of idea you're having going into something. It can be a bit telling when you see some rather unknown game get below middling scores from most big outlets, but actual player reviews find it to be decent and even note that it's odd that the "professionals" had such a big gripe with the game. Though, I'll also say that there's some games I'm happy to get my $10-20 worth from, but I'm not sure I'd say the same had I bought them at full launch price.

Remake of a 10 year old game that runs at half the frame rate. Also a 30FPS platformer. How is any of that acceptable?