Without of the 0 score it'd be approx 63% but I see that it's been patched to fix issues and complaints that people were having. Perhaps the low scorers need to be asked to re-review (though possibly leaving off that zero assigning site) to bump it up.

It's always good to see developers listening to their audience and responding to fix the things they dislike.

Still... giving it a zero is a really mean thing to do.

I see it as more of a problem with the statistical model of the site. Usually, in statistical measurement you would quickly identify the 0 sample as an outlier and remove it. In this case one could argue that such a likely-to-be-noise sample was influenced by some external pollution; the rater most likely had a bad day or had some other personal reason to bash on the game. To weigh it into the mean is simply bad data-extraction and raises the question of what the model really is supposed to measure.

If you go on steam you can sort the games by metacric ratings. I bet nobody looks at the individual ratings they simply look at the score, it can probably tip people to decide if they will get the game or not. I bet this is not the game that has this type of rating. Its fairly obvious why a "game reviewer" would do it. Even he wrote a 40 (which is the next lowest) at least thats abit of honesty. Zero that seems wrong. I bet some blogger could find all sorts of similar metascores.