(I couldn't understand some of your post).
I think it is wrong to call games good/bad, or even to rate them. For every game, someone somewhere is going to love it; and someone else is going to hate it.
Reviewers should concentrate on telling us what the game is like, what it is trying to be, whether it succeeds at what it's trying to be, and who it is best suited for.
For example, a review on Battlefield might say it's a good shooter but the storyline is light and there's not much else to do. That means that people who just want to run around killing will like it, and people who prefer deeper, more involved games won't.
A review on GTA IV might say it's realistic and has an extensive storyline, but it doesn't feel as fun or wild as GTA VC or GTA SA. The car handling is a lot more realistic, but the combat is not great, and it looks gritty and depressing. That means people who like racing cars or just doing missions will like it, but people who enjoy doing crazy things (blowing shit up, jetpacks, breaking into army bases, going on killing rampages in tanks) will get bored.
I think that would be a LOT more useful.