Anyone else agree that exclusive games get away with a lot more?

It seems to me that exclusive games tend to get away with a lot more flaws than multiplats do, for example, critics might bash a multiplat game for having reptitive combat or poor level design, but not one critic said it about Mass Effect 2, and also, Kane and Lynch 2 (which I never played, but have heard about it's length), was bashed for being only 4 hours long, yet no critics said anything else about Metal Gear solid 4 having only for hours of gameplay, the list goes on, so does anyone else agree that exclusive games get away with a lot more flaws than mulitplats do?

Mass Effect 2 was never exlcusive.

Mass Effect 2 was never exlcusive.

lx_theo

Mass Effect 2 was a microsoft exlcusive when released.

It seems to me that exclusive games tend to get away with a lot more flaws than multiplats do, for example, critics might bash a multiplat game for having reptitive combat or poor level design, but not one critic said it about Mass Effect 2, RageQuitter69

[QUOTE="lx_theo"]

Mass Effect 2 was never exlcusive.

RageQuitter69

Mass Effect 2 was a microsoft exlcusive when released.

As the above ME2 was never an exclusive.

Will this be the excuse for Sony domination next gen?

so you have one example of an exclusive in your OP?

Nope.

Nope Bathesda exists and they're multiplat.

In the fanboy sub-culture they do.

Sadly, I think there are a handful of reviewers out there who are a part of it, and their reviews show clear biases.

The complete opposite is true if its a 3DS exclusive.

"A typo in the manual?...6.5..."-gs

not really.