No, he's saying mainstream reviewers are prone to unnecessary hyperbole. Actually, scratch that, everyone is.
plattyaj made a great point, btw. I've not actually seen it in relation to adventure game reviews, but nowadays many games get underscored for NOT having a multiplayer option. Personally I think this is blatantly stupid, as the multiplayer experience is a completely different animal and games can survive without them. I've read one reviewer complaining that RE4 didn't have a multiplayer option. I mean... wtf? WHO CARES! That said, there's been an upsurge in demand for strong narrative in games in recent years, so it kinda balances out...
As for this review, well, there's really not much wrong with it. Judging from comments on this board, people are fairly evenly split between ecstatic from those who really dig this style of adventure, to disappointed for various reasons. The guy sounds more concerned with the fact AG's aren't progressing, much like Trepsie, rather than dedicated to towing a line. Most of the references to the games technical problems are justified from what I've played of it.
If anything, familiarity can breed contempt. It's worth bearing that in mind when looking at mainstream reviewers who get played day in, day out to play all sorts of games - and mainly nasty crap too. If anything, the reviewer IS correct in many ways that adventure fans ARE more willing to forgive and have even admitted as such on these very boards. Comparatively, a weak RTS or FPS never garners many gamers within the hardcore of those genres, and there's plenty of bad reviews for them too which decry them for sticking to basics without either doing a good job or at least SOME kind of differentation. I've read reviews saying "hardcore RTS players might find something within the solid AI, but..." too. There's really no bias unless you want there to be.
