GameSpot defends Ratchet and Clank's 7.5

[Garcian Smith]

BrainBoxLtd said:
You should never have to justify a critique if you’re a good critic. The justification should be the review itself. I read their Ratchet and Clank review, and it felt half-hearted. Like someone kinda hurried through parts of it to finish for the weekend or something. Their review complained constantly about the game being to easy, but only briefly mentions you unlock a hard mode after beating the game. Well does that help? It change anything? Was it a bust and the game is still to easy?

Same for the story. “There's some good humor in it, but the story isn't very interesting, and the ending is a letdown.” I understand they don’t want to spoilt things for people, but is it not interesting compared to previous R&C titles, or what? He does explain the ending is a cheap cliff hanger however, but is that what ultimately made the story a letdown? Because even a simple story for a game works fine, provided you still get proper closure.

Perhaps they do have very good reasons for their scores, but they need to further elaborate on why to avoid these kinds of accusations of favoritism or incompetence. It’s also cop-out to use the collective anonymous asses of the internet to avoid answering valid criticism when you’re confronted with it

 An unlockable hard mode doesn't mitigate the fact that you need to play through the "easy" mode to get there first. Someone who doesn't enjoy easy games will probably get bored after the first hour or two.

As for the story, the reviewer couldn't say any more than that without giving anything away. Them's the ropes when trying to review a game's story. Also, there's good and bad cliffhangers. See, for example, the Legacy of Kain games as an example of how to use cliffhanger endings while still giving the game some closure. From the review, it looks like ToD just had a "bad" cliffhanger. 

So, I really don't see where your confusion lies, nor where there's any need for elaboration.