Well, judging things by the norm is acceptable when it comes to technical stuff (there needs to be a bar for measuring the technical implementation), but to be honest, a lot of the criticisms leveled at Japanese games these days are at least grounded in reality.
I agree but everyone has to play by the same coin aka AAA or high-profile games. See this for example,
Total War: Rome II
Armed with a new engine, Rome II looks great, plays smoothly, and will be a challenge to both veterans and novices.
On what earth did he see that? When Rome II came out it was a technical mess never mind the fact that Shogun 2 was greatly superior yet it got so many 90 scores my head is spinning.
I would argue that any technical mess in which I define consistent frame drops/screen tearing, bug(s) or many-times-occurring should start at 6 at least. If the game is not a finished product then beta the fuck out of it. No consumer should wait for miracle patches to enjoy a finished product which he paid already for it and was expecting a finished product.
Should the longevity of a game matter in a review? Of course because it is part of the game and it should be stressed not downplayed like "if it is a demo, if it is a prologue it is one of the best", "if you can ignore how short it is considering how many other DLCs charge you more", "You can replay it over 9000 times".
For example for Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes
It's staggeringly short and unsatisfying, feeling more like a cash grab than an honest-to-goodness installment in a beloved franchise.
However it should not be counted for the score. How long or how short a game is, it has absolutely nothing to do with scoring because you end up with value vs time and that creates opinion(s). But when you are reviewing it, you should include that. Same thing with DLCs and pre-order editions. That is what a good and complete review is in my eyes. Having the ability to distinguish what should be in the review and what should be in the score.
Most the games by smaller Japanese studios and publishers are pretty low budge and lacking in technical polish. Also, because a lot of these games only sell a few hundred thousand copies, the developers generally don't have an incentive to do revolutionary changes to their gameplay or mechanics.
And here is the juice. If I, as a reader, are informed that this game was created by a low budget/small team or it is their first game, I would be more informed and more acceptable but the reviewer must want me to be informed and acceptable. If he wants to do justice to the game. In that respect if it is a low-budget/small game that is a technical mess he should mention it in his review and he should include it in his score but he must let me acknowledge the limitations and I will judge how justified it is or not. Now if we take a look at most or some grand franchises COD, Pokemon, Mario Kart, Monster Hunter, Dragonball, Mortal Kombat, World of Warcraft and we put them in chronological order and we break down its series you would see a linear development right?
I am probably pigeonholing but my point is that every genre can only do as much (lets not even debate about FPS). And the more limited space you have aka tactical-turn based RPGs the more limitations apply to do something "else. What is left in practice are enhancements. That's it. The best thing about a genre is how diversified it is. For instance MMOrpgs - You got shit ton; hybrid, tab-targeting combat system, action combat instance, FPS and third-person. But that did not happen within a day or two; the genre diversified because people were open to change. And of course quantity does not mean quality and the market will fix that in time.
And theme is extremely important no matter how generic it is. Think of it this way - how many games you would not have played and are grateful if they didn't exist because they were not better than the norm? Take me for example; if Witcher, Dishonored, Gungnir, Metro, Unchained Baldes, Phantasy Star Portable, Mass Effect, I would have never left my comfort zone of "Final Fantasy or nothing" or even experiment with other genres.
You see where I am getting at?
This is a good example of a good review.
For Demon Gaze,
The biggest hurdle to enjoying the game is simply your tastes for (or tolerance of) copious displays of fanservice.
That said, the commenter had a valid point about a lot of game reviews not talking about non-story content, but for a lot of people, the story content is important when it comes to making a purchase, so covering the ways it might offend people/make them uncomfortable is just as important as going over the game mechanics.
But writing mostly about the story makes you more of a seller rather than a reviewer because you intentionally omit other factors to make me buy or not buy a game and that is not your job or should never be your job. Don't you agree?
Edit: I over did it again.