I know what you're thinking and how you're instantly going to jump to a 'yes', but hear me out first. I was thinking a short while ago about some of the games I've played that have been... less than stellar. Games that weren't 'bad' of necessity, but also weren't really 'good' either. They were just... meh. Games where there is pretty much nothing to define them and they're 'by the numbers' through and through. Which is to say you can know everything about the game without even having played it. A stock story, stock gameplay, stock graphics... nothing actually BAD, but nothing actually GOOD either.
So is it a 5/10 or something else? After all, a 5/10 game tends to leave at least some sort of impression, be it because of its potential and things it did right despite its handicaps, or how it shot itself in the foot despite its potential to be great. But is that actually better than a game that's simply 100% predictable and uninteresting? Is a perfectly 'average' game a game you would rate 4/10 if you actually reviewed it simply because there is no substance to it? Or is the ideal of 'average' being a 5/10 strong enough that you would be able to tell and put it there despite its lack of... well... anything?