This is easy. First there are a lot of people who said they didn't like it to whom I didn't reply simply because they mention some details about the game which show they probably own it, or researched it enough. You just wrote a very generalized conclusion without any detail or reasoning whatsoever. So, you probably just read a few articles and looked at some videos at most.
Aha, what you wrote simply shows that you're commenting on something you don't even own, but you assume you know enough about it to conclude it is generic.
This isn't the first time gamespot reviewers gave some kind of arbitrary low score to an otherwise good game. It happened with Batman Origins, for example, which the reviewer Marilyn basically criticized for being "same as other batman games" and gave it something like a 6.
They do not have any standard or a scale of any kind by which they could rate a game. No scoring method that would show -1 here or a +1 there. They used to do that in early 2000s when sound and voice acting were separate categories on gamespot and each category got its own score. Although even that wasn't always accurate.
In this case I just think gamespot reviewers are often jaded gamers who have grown up and lost interest in a lot of what still games fun for younger new gaming enthusiasts. So these older guys give games unreasonably low scores simply because they are tired of games in general.
Another example of how rating a game with a relatively low score can be old Sonic and Mario game series. As far as I remember almost every classic Sonic game was reviewed highly. Each game presented something a bit new, but kept the same sonic which ran fast and had the same moves through more or less similar areas. Forest-Urban-Ruins-(insert random area)-Robotnik's Mechanical factory. Very similar to each previous Sonic game. No one would thing giving a game lower score because it was similar to the previous one.
It also implies that all gamers reading the review must have played previous Batman games, which simply cannot be the case. There are always new gamers, kids who have grown old enough, and people unfamiliar with Arkham Asylum, or Arkham City, to them saying "boring because it is just like the previous game" wouldn't be relevant at all, and it shouldn't.
Yes, besides, how do we know the critic who was tasked with reviewing the game wasn't just in a bad mood or depressed, which caused the boredom while playing? Since that is possible, every review needs to have the "constructive" in "constructive criticism" to have a well founded basis for the reasons given.
@biggest_loser @StopFear Ideas for what could be done differently are not for the developers. They are to explain why a game deserves a score the reviewer gives it. For example description of reoccurring bugs, or poor voice acting, graphics glitches, etc.
Wooow gamespot. Wow Carolyn Petit. This review could not be more off. I would say a 6 is for games that are average at best, maybe, games that have some kind of functionality issues. Whether one likes Batman and all that superhero stuff, this game deserves at least a 7.0. I have it, and the fact that it feels and plays like previous entries in the series is in no way something that should be a cause for lower score. Previous games, were all highly rated. This one offers plenty of new content, excellent voice acting, etc. I totally understand if someone doesn't "like it" but 6/10 is just insulting. I agree with another poster who asked "what changes would the reviewer actually like to see" I'd even go as far as saying "for every criticism some better counter example is needed, or a recommendation of why or how it should have been done. Reviews need a point of reference, not subjective opinion."
StopFear's comments