Yes they are held to unrealistic standards, they don't try any realism on physics or graphics.

You're misunderstanding.  I'm not talking about Nintendo games being required to have stories to have enjoyable or great experiences.

It's not about forcing games.  It's just about what games satisfy all or as many of the criteria as possible to make sense as a true 10/10; regardless of genre.  If it makes sense for Nintendo games to be at their best with just gameplay then that's what they can do and they should stick with that.  But that doesn't mean their games DESERVE straight 10/10s from everywhere just because that's most what all their games can do like Zelda and Mario.  Even if well.

You can enjoy those games as much as you want, but for the sake of critical acclaim and awards that's just not going to cut it imo.  Even objectively it makes more sense to cover all or as much ground as possible to be a true 10/10.  In which case Nintendo games typically do not.  They're missing out a huge portion of what games have been doing for a long time now; in which case that includes story (aka variety in what you mentioned).

They might be 10/10s to you because the gameplay aspect is all you're searching for or need, or a lesser active narrative even if a good narrative generally speaking, but that's not going to satisfy everyone to the largest extent.

There is no game that satisfies everyone to the fullest, but they should at least be as close as possible to deserve straight 10/10s and Goty awards. 

I just don't agree. A game is an opinion, based mostly on fun. If a reviewer thinks a game is a 10, so be it. Adding objective criteria to a subjective process is a paradox.

I mean should RDR2, TLoU, Spider-Man all be dinged for not having a two player couch coop experience?  We should have all criteria (including two player) included in the review process, right?  Or does it make more sense to accept a two player coop mode makes sense for say Mario Odyssey but not for Spider-Man?  Thus it would be unfair to hold Spider-Man to standards in which the game was never intended to meet.  

God of War; 6/10.  Minus 1 for no couch coop.  Minus 1 for no online play.  Minus 1 for not being child friendly.  Minus 1 for no motion controls.  Right???  For God of War to be highly ranked, it has to have ALL gaming criteria.    

No need to go full ham. I didn't say ALL gaming criteria needs to be satisfied for a game to make sense to be rated at a high level.  Rather as much as possible to deserve the highest/higher acclaim over other games for Goty awards yes, since the topic is about gaming standards.  To add to that regarding the criteria, the more consistent criteria (I'll get to that below).  

If any thing read this so you'll (and everyone else) stay focused on my point without going off the rails:

**As gamers of any type we typically feel that all games can and should be graded on a general level of fun or good experience to make up the majority of their score, yes.  But that doesn't mean they deserve the highest acclaim.**

I don't look at games starting at a 10 and then subtracting from there, because that's assuming they satisfy a lot of criteria at the highest levels to begin with. I'm not going to suggest that reviewers should  take off a whole point from a game because it doesn't have coop or online or whatever; even story.  Revolutionary gameplay/innovative gameplay can add on to it imo because it pushes the envelope of the current standards. Just maybe not necessarily a 10 even then but closer than others, also once again imo. I grade on a .25 scale personally so I have given games that only excel at gameplay and game design with not too much else a 9.25 or 9.5.

Online and coop criteria are limited to people (including how well mannered they are) so for online and coop I could argue that they're not as consistent or as important for a game to excel objectively at as much as story, art design, soundtrack and innovation/uniqueness.  But the former ARE things you can include to add to a game's value.  They're just limited to situational instances based on the people you can play or not play with.  Online servers will also be taken off eventually for most games.  Maybe some people don't include the future for a game well past its generation, but I do consider it as well as the current standard the game came out with when giving a score.  

I would say it's easier to get a passing score, but it's harder to excel once you've reached the minimum requirements to be a passing and mostly functional game.  Some people say a 6 is a good passing score, but on the grade school level and college level that's not a passing grade.  Maybe different countries have that and 6 is a passing score, but not in the US as far as I know.

But whatever, different gaming philosophies.  Some of the above is based on what I feel as the most objective (from my subjective life experience like anybody else's) so don't take it too much to heart.

"**As gamers of any type we typically feel that all games can and should be graded on a general level of fun or good experience to make up the majority of their score, yes. But that doesn't mean they deserve the highest acclaim.**"

Disagree completely. Fun is fun. That is all that matters.

"Online and coop criteria are limited to people (including how well mannered they are) so for online and coop I could argue that they're not as consistent or as important for a game to excel objectively at as much as story, art design, soundtrack and innovation/uniqueness. "

In your opinion, which is fine. Not in my opinion. That is my point. Basically things you find important should be part of the review process, things other people find important, well you don't think it should be included as criteria. You do see the problem there, right?  Which you, kudos to you because you acknowledge it at the end of your post.  Again, credit for the honesty.  And I agree, I don't take any of this heated.  I just don't think art (books, movies, videogames, plays, etc) should be rated on anything other than enjoyment.  Art is designed with a specific objective, there is reason why certain elements may have been included while others have intentionally be left out. 

At the end of the day I will take Odyssey coop (I have young kids) over any videogame narrative in history.  I hate stories in games.  If anything I think too many games push the story too hard, and it distracts/interrupts actually playing the game.  I would be pleased as punch (outside rpgs) if stories disappeared in gaming.  I have beaten Dark Souls 1-3 at least a combined dozen times.  My understanding of the story is something something fire, collect souls, something something fire.  Stories just don't do it for me.    

As an easy example, I don't think Schindler's list should max out at 9.25 because it is black and white.  It was filmed black/white (minus the red coat) for intentional purposes.  Something like Mario Galaxy doesn't have a narrative, because a narrative would absolutely ruin the flow of the game.  So Galaxy shouldn't be held back (in terms of reviews) because Nintendo made the correct choice by not interrupting the game with a narrative that would serve no purpose.

A lot of the stuff above you actually agreed with me on despite saying or swaying into some disagreement.  Like the majority (or all) of a game's score being about how enjoyable it is. Fun is fun, but fun is subjective and that's where I disagree that being the only important criteria.  I myself would also need a game to be engaging in a variety of other ways to feel like it deserved something extra. I myselft like you also prefer RPGs to be the ones to have heavy stories only compared to other genres.  Very few exceptions with action games, but there are some.

Not everyone has kids, but even if you do you may still prefer a game to have a story.  If you don't and feel it interrupts that's fine.  But to fully satisfy for the sake of acclaim I think a good story/soundtrack/innovation etc should be prominent as much as possible to give it that added sense of worth over other games.

Generally speaking I don't believe there even should be a review system, but they've been around for so long creating their own trends on what ought or what not ought to be so it gets annoying to me sometimes.

Blood Borne is rpg, right? Did it have a deep story? And what about Fire Emblem and Xenoblade series?

Played Blood borne some, have only beaten Fire Emblem Awakening and only played some of Xenoblade Chronicles 1 and X.  Not enough to make a judgment call on anything except maybe Fire Emblem Awakening, but it's been a while so I'd have to play it again.  Liked the game though so I'd give it a favorable score if I had to.

Story wise, XC1 >>>>>>>>> FEA > XCX

I plan on finishing XC1 at least someday because a friend of mine and myself are having a give and take to complete games either we recommended to each other or on our back log.  Like if he starts one game recommended or backlogged, I'll have to start one of his recommendations or my list Ad Infinitum.  My backlog is too big and I have tons of games 5-10 years or older with unfinished save files.  It kind of makes finishing the games more fun with the obligation since we'd probably never complete some of these games.  Still waiting on him to start on his next and then I'll continue XC1 again.