In any grading/rating system I've ever ben a part of, 60% is a failing grade. ...and thank you for demonstrating my point about critics *losing the point*, and feeling that the purpose of a game is to be "impressive" and "innovative". The purpose of a game is to be FUN TO PLAY, and ENTERTAIN the gamer. Anything else is gravy. I don't care if a game is "innovative"...if it's not fun to play. I don't care if its innovative if it IS fun to play.

On a scale of 1-10, where 1 is worst and 10 is best then anything around 4, 5 or 6 is OK. Not terrible, not fantastic. It's not a pass or fail thing, it's a simple grading system. As best as I can remember, Official Playstation Magazine UK (and 2 generations of 8-bit and 16-bit system focused magazines before them) used a system that generally went like this: 1. Awful 2. Bad 3. Poor 4. Below Average 5. Average 6. Above Average 7. Good 8. Great 9. Excellent 10. Perfect Destiny is far from being a 10/10 game (I remember back in the PS1 days, only 3 games that I can remember ever got 10/10 from the major magazines). It's also far, far away from being bad. The point I was getting at is that review scores stopped being any sort of accurate or reliable indication of the quality of the product as soon as certain publishers started buying 9's and 10's. I've had a lot of fun so far, and aside from a few annoying things (lack of matchmaking in certain modes, lack of easy communication between players) it's a good, solid game.