Keep in mind that was back in a different time where hardware limitations were heavy and pushing the envelope often resulted in issues.  It was a pionering game, the early ones always have the advantage of not having points of reference to be compared to.  That and what was considered "acceptable" back then was different.  OoT didn't even run at 30fps

Personally, I always saw this game as a potential B-Game.  Much like B-Movies, B-Games can be fun.  I Two Worlds 2 is definitely a B-Game that many enjoyed.  But anyone can sit down and pick it to pieces.  I wouldn't rate Two Worlds 2 very highly or give it any awards, no way.  Same wtih B-Movies.  There are some fun ones out there.  I watched Shoot Em Up once.  The writing was poor, the dialogue was cheesy, and the "political commentary" (forgive me writers who have *actually* done good political commentary, I had no other words to describe it) wre cringeworthy oftentimes.  But it was amusing for its absurdity and crazy action.  And that's perfectly fine.  And I would never rate it highly - not in a million years would I give it higher than a 6 - but I had fun with it and there you go.  That's also fine.  People need to understand, having fun with something doesn't make it necessarily good.  I have played Mount&Blade for hundreds of hours.  That's a B-game through and through.  It has a 6.5 to 7 on most sites and I couldn't agree more.  But I enjoy it a lot and I'm perfectly ok with that.  Critique is about pointing out strengths and weaknesses and evaluating based on that.  Not just on whether you had some fun.  

I shall be picking that game up at some point too, its at a nice price point nowadays. Graphics looks superb, I suppose that game  got slated because of how short it was?

Well the issue is the consumer and the critic are after different things.  One is after just enjoyment, the other is after evaluation.  Ideally, critics are there to push the medium forward and to understand what makes the greats great.  In a way, they are ther for the sake of the creators.  The idea of creators vs critics is actually unhealthy.  As a creator myself (writer), I can personally attest to how aggrivatingly useless it is when I ask someone to read my work and give feedback and all they say is "that was nice."  And that's it.  What made it nice, what made it good, what worked, what didn't.  That's what I *want* to know.  A critic who hands out gold stars to every creation that gives them a smile is an utterly useless one.

Now on the other hand you have a different set out there.  Critics would be your Angry Joes, your Totalbiscuits, guys who not only ask if they enjoyed something but surgically pick the thing in question apart to give a detailed analysis.  But then you have another group - many of them do streaming or lets plays - who are purely giving their feeling on the game.  They serve a different purpose in that they aren't going to disect the game, they're just going to say "this is it, I like it or I don't."  They cater to people of similar opinion, which is also fine.  .

But both of these are there as informants.  They tell you about the game.  One might be more surgical and more critical, but their job to the consumer is primarily as providers of information about the game based on what they got to play.  Then you make up your mind on your own.  So while all the critique and scores may not interest everyone or be agreed upon, the objective informatio (graphical glitches, spotty writing, frame rate issues, etc) is important and should be provided so that people can make informed decisions.  No one should look at one review or one agregate site, but the information provided makes research before purchase possible, which is important in keeping companies relatively honest.  

I guess the short of it is yes, games are meant to be fun.  And fun can score some points.  But it's not just a question of what is there that is good (the fun) but what is bad.  Reviews are holistic.  If they put it in, it should be evaluated.  Even if it is something many players won't care about.  Case in point:  the campaign for Titanfall.  Many people didn't play.  But it was there and it was awful and therefore it had to be addressed.