Naw , GAF is pretty diverse, unlike game critics as a whole. As, far as retail console stuff goes, game critics collectively like familiar easy games that don't require learning or practice yet are also new and innovative; that is, they want the same but different and they want deep engaging mechanics that require no effort or practice.
The real problem though, is they give themseselves the veneer of objectivity in order to justify their role in society and give value to their work, and that role is arbitor of game quality. Jeff Gertsman's review of driveclub, for example, called the driving mechanics broken. He did not say 'not to my taste' or 'too different from horizon to be comfortable', but broken. Given the fact that it is not broken but wholly consistent, why say it is broken?
Well, one possibility is that if your identity and self worth is wrapped up in your job, like most people, and you job is telling others what is good and what bad, and you fashion yourself as an expert in all things videogames, well if you don't like something then that something must be objectively bad. Then you cast about for reasons as to why, in this case the game must be 'broken'.
I think a more likely answer is that reviewers know that if they let the audience in on the secret that their collective opinions aren't objective, and are only valuable if the reader has the same tastes as a bunch of 20-40 y.o. writers who have to play 30+ mostly shitty videogames per year in order to make money, they might be out of a job.
The best course of action if you want advice on game purchases is to look at your favorite games, find reviewers/youtubbers/gaffers/irl-friends etc that share your tastes, and follow them. Do not look at an aggregate score or a random critic for guidance.
I was young and put huge trust in reviews at the time.
IIRC, the game was also labelled as a poor man's Final Fantasy.