I mean, the problem is his comment has more holes than Swiss cheese.
It sounds more like he wants points for just being different. That sometimes happens, but his comment makes so much more sense when you realize it’s fundamentally flawed.
> As long as a game is polished at launch, you’re guaranteed a 80%, no matter how boring the game might be.
No matter what, there is going to be some kind of baseline score. A score where an average game, that performs fine gets a predictable score. But even if people changed it, making scores based off how unique a game is doesn’t solve the problem. It’s still an arbitrary guideline that positively impacts one group, and negatively impacts another one.
But his biggest fault is the 80 percent guarantee. While again, there will always be a baseline, I think most would agree the “safe” score is 70. That might seem like semantics, but it helps to remember his game got a 73. That is ultimately the point, which is fundamentally wrong.
He is basically saying, he scored lower than what he feels a safe game is guaranteed, though by all accounts he scored higher. His comment also ignores eight outlets gave it a 90+ scores on PC, and in doing so also misses the point.
His problem is honestly more to do with averages than anything. Anyone who understands basic math knows that maintaining a high number is extremely difficult if you get an extremely low number. So in his case his game’s lowest three PC Metacritic scores are 55, 50, and 50. You add these 11 numbers together and his average is just 80.4.
That’s all it took. Three low scores decimated his one perfect score, and seven great scores. Xbox is no different. It got four 90s, and one 40, which is also 80. But then again, I’m just one of those critics, so what do I know.