I was listening to an old Bombcast where a listener wrote in, concerned about the health of the Final Fantasy franchise because Final Fantasy 13 "didn't review well", a game that currently has an 83% rating at Metacritic(m). You hear this pretty often about a game, that it "didn't review well". This has come up a number of times in a competing podcast, where familiar faces remarked that games like Far Cry 2 (85%m) and Demon's Souls (89%m), among others that scored in the mid 80s, "didn't review well" upon their release. I'm sure the staff here have suggested similar things about other games in the past, though I can't recall specifically.
Some of it I guess is in relation to previous games from the series but other times, people seem to have a number in their heads about what a well reviewed game should at least score.
For me, even with how top heavy review scores are in gaming, in an aggregated setting, I just can't claim a game "didn't review well" if it has an 80 or above. Below 80, I don't think there are that many people over the moon about the game and probably a reasonable amount of negative reviews as well.
What's a good Metacritic score to you, what's a "well reviewed" game, and what does it mean to you when someone says a game "didn't review well"?
Boiled down, the question is, if someone tells you some new game "didn't review well", what's the highest average score that pops into your head?