Tomorrooooow
1 Day, yeah!

Well some of the lower review scores are just ridiculous.  Especially the one that has been mentioned where the reviewer says that its the best Spiderman game ever but then ends up only giving it a 7/10.  87 is still a very good metascore but it probably should have ended up a couple points higher.  

Yep, I guessed 90 even though I was already imagining it deserved more because I was antecipating some hate.

You don't see how it's unreasonable to ask developers to not only make great games but to move their genre forward in an important way? That's not only unreasonable it's impossible for any dev to do so consistently.

Not only does the quote have nothing do with consistency in regards to innovation (?), but just like everything relating to video game critique it is all about the degree and not the direct quote itself. I'm sure if the reviewer felt that this was the best superhero game ever made, and that it perfected the genre without being "revolutionary", he would have given a much higher score and his summary would be way different. However, because that is not how he feels, the lack of innovation sticks out even more. 

Honestly, this shouldn't even need explanation. How much people want out of a game is not just due to basic descriptors, but how well core elements are pulled off. If you would have read the entire review like I did, you'd see why it got that kind of criticism. 

If he took 5-15 points because of lack of pushing the genre in a meaningful way ok. And if he doesn't put issues or errors you could understand as "perfecting the genre" if you want.

But he took 30 points, that is exaggerated. Unless they usually take 30 on average just on that it already points a grave error on their score.

First of all, that implies that every game starts out as a 10/10 and then gets reduced points from there.  A game has to work to get a certain score. A 7/10 isn't 3 points from the base score, it's 7. You don't start a  game assuming it's a 10/10. Don't look at it like it got deducted 3 points, look at it as if it earned 7. I guess it's whether you're a glass half full or glass half empty kind of guy. 

There is actually quite a lot of complaints in the review, a few of which have nothing to do with innovation. So again, you're wrong. A summary is supposed to give you the most basic idea of what to expect from a game quality-wise. That summary is pretty good because the main gripe the writer had was not just the lack of innovation, but the consequential repetition as a result. If you do not want to go and read the review, at the very least do not assume every negative detailed is tied in to some pretentious notion of innovation. Because the points made are actually good. I and many other people might not agree with them, but it is far from an unconvincing review. 

Looking forward to Edge's review.

That's what happens when you have reviewers that have never worked in the industry or even learned the process of creating games. Imagine if other things were reviewed with that mindset. 

"This car has excellent gas mileage, but since it doesn't allow me to fly I give it a 7/10."

"This CPU is competitively priced, has a eight cores, hyperthreading, and a  4.3 ghz clockspeed equal to the competition. But since it doesn't go any faster than competitors I give it 7/10."

"This weightlifter just benched 1075 lbs, but since that isn't anything more than the current world record I give him a 7/10."

Basically what this reviewer is saying is that Spider-Man can't just be a top-quality game. No, no, no! It has to move the definition of quality even further along! I don't have a problem with a score of 7/10. That's fine. But the idea that games have to perpetually improve or else they won't get top marks is ridiculous. If someone told me that there was a new JRPG as good as Chrono Trigger I'd be jumping for joy. If that same person said, "Oh, but it's only as good as Chrono Trigger, and that's a 20 year old game, so I'll pass", I'd smack them across the top of their head. 

This idea that games must not only match the best in their genres, but somehow continually improve on them, is what I'm coining "The Edge review mentality". Why? Because Edge Magazine has had this mentality for years. And they are one of the worst review publications I have ever read. Their scores make zero sense whatsoever, even when they hand out good scores. 

Edit: Ok, the reviewer in question actually had more real complaints. But his final line, blurb, or whatever you call it is horribly written,and gives the impression that he has the Edge review mentality. But my above comments still apply to Edge wholeheartedly. 

Agreed. If he had other complaints with the game as well that's fine have no issue with that. His little blurb here was still in the review and still affected the score which seriously just ruins the rest of the review IMO. I can't take someone who says that seriously at that point.