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.

Well

R &C has an Average score of 9.1 according to gamerankings or some site like that

Now Gamespot gave it 7.5,

2.6 points BELOW the average

I think statistically their review can be called an anomoly..

 why change what isnt broken? Did bungie, epic, polyphony, etc change their franchises gameplay much? Nope they improved upon them. 

They thought there was a lot of things that could be done better and that you can get a better R&C experience on the PS2 for a lot cheaper, so unless you're fans of the series who've already played them all and want a new one, you're better off playing the old games. Why should a game with so many flaws -- which were all pointed out, and are all true -- get such a high score? The whole point is it can be a good game without getting a high score.

 what major glitchs? I never saw one that hindered the overall gameplay. There was no framerate issues, no clipping, no tearing. Just a random box gets stuck in the wall. Thats the only major glitch and you have to do is jump and hit the box to break it.

Gamespot... Fighting score inflation one incrementally improved sequel at a time...

See, the game was actually a big step back in the series to me. The developers claimed it was more platforming focused, but it was more shooter focused. The multiplayer (which was awesome in UYA) was gone, and the guns were just not nearly as fun. There were too many explosives, and the groovitron was NEVER useful.

So, from my perspective, I understand the score completely. As a fan of the other R&C games, I found this one lacking. It felt rushed and was missing features that it should have had. If he bases scores off of how much there is that can be improved upon then the score completely makes sense. There is a lot that could have been improved upon and was taken away from the previous games.

Now, keep in mind, this is MY OPINION, and I understand that not everyone shares it. I also formed this opinion after about 3 and a half hours of playing the game, and although my opinion about it could change later in the game, any game that takes more than 3 hours to get good is obviously lacking in appeal TO ME.

You are never going to share the same opinion as every reviewer. If I agreed with every reviewer's opinion then I would hate Folklore, which I actually really enjoy. It averaged a 7.7 on Gamerankings but other than its length and lag when switching Folk I loved the game.

 you never used the groovitron? it saved me quite a few times. Especially at the beginning and in the fight arena.

Does that mean everybody should always be thinking the very same thing ? That having a different opinion is bad ? Do EVERY SINGLE reviewer HAS TO love R&C ?

Critic isen't a technical test, it's opinion.

Someone can be happy to find the same things he had before. Someone can be dissappointed because he only finds the same things he had before.

 And I think the gamespot 7.5 story doesn't really go further than that.