Reviews from journalists are a good indication of whether a game is worth the full day-one price or not, but it’s the community that truly distinguish whether a game deserves to be exalted.

Speaking of side missions, you said they weren’t interesting? Did you even finish them? Most of them had a fantastic conclusion.

Now let’s talk about the Riddler’s Revenge; this adds enormous replay value. You don’t have to rely on Catwoman to get more playtime from the game. If you didn’t think the story was “special” enough to draw you back in for at least another playthrough, then why even give the game an 88?. The pressure plate challenges aren’t even hard. I found the dive bomb and then glide right above ground through small spaces to be the hardest, and even those only took about 5-10 tries, but most of the trophies that unlock the ranked and campaign rooms are very easy to get; you just need to backtrack with the right gadget.

Also, I didn’t find the buildings to be similar at all; most of them were surprisingly unique. If I was blind folded and put on top of one of them, I would know exactly where I was without even looking at anything but the building itself.

Generally speaking, my take away from the review is that the reviewer simply didn’t want to like the game, and despite his prejudices still managed to give it an 88, which says a lot if you can read between the lines to arrive at that interpretation/conclusion.  While reviews are meant to be unbiased, they are subjective, and there’s always a chance that a person’s bias will bleed through in a review.  Other reviewers do it, I do it.  Despite best efforts, it happens.

I’m still playing through the game, and once complete will come back to point out the items based on opinion (subjective) and, more importantly, the direct fallacies of the review.  Hopefully the reviewer/site take it seriously and in stride, as this is too good of a site, and there’s always room/ways to improve.