Seems like 3.5 - 4 /5 is the general consensus and I agree. The game was released with a lot of minor issues that needed to be polished.
This is true for most games, but it is generally ignored with "big name", so-called AAA titles where the reviewers assume that the issues will be addressed (basically, these games receive scores based on their potential). With smaller releases, like FE, those issues are more likely to impact the score (basically, they are evaluated on an "as is" basis, not the potential), which tends to give a skewed impression of the situation.
But then again, I feel the bigger issue is that release scores frequently become meaningless after a few weeks or months, yet those ratings stay around forever even if the current state of a game may be better or worse. Look at Civ5, for example, and the initial hype and high ratings before people realized how poor the AI deals with the 1UPT combat approach and how insufficient support turned out to be (MP issues, especially). And then you have titles like SotA2 (and possibly FE, though I think FE's release state is very good) where the release state (that a rating is based on) has nothing to do with the actual game the way it is a year later.
That's why Metacritic's "metascore" is so troublesome. It's tempting to believe that it leads to higher launch quality, but I feel that what it really does is to provide lower incentive for studios to continue working on, and improving, their games after release, unless they got initially high marks, which screws over customers who pre-order or have faith in a new game. Static scores used to have a place when games rarely changed much after release (twenty+ years ago), but in today's age they feel suboptimal to me.
