Relativity is the most important factor to consider when assigning scores. In lack of an absolute objective meter — which implicitly we can’t have in these matters — what we’re left with is our own subjective assessments, that we distill to make relatively objective conclusions. The question is how we calibrate that relativity.

It seems to me that your case with San Andreas and Castle of Shikigami is miscalibrated in the same manner as most game reviews, in that you calibrate your relatve objectivity to your assumptions about what your average reader might consider “worthwhile” rather than to, frankly, the most solid foundation you have — that being the work itself: how well it succeeds in what it sets out to do, and whether you feel that its goal was a worthwhile one in the first place.

It would be one thing if you rated San Andreas higher because you felt it succeeded better at what it set out to do, regardless of which game you’d rather play. To compare them directly to each other, however, with a goal of determining some mythical absolute value for your average reader, is ludicrous. It’s exactly the issue that you complain about in this article.

For the sake of comparison, let’s take Roger Ebert’s system of review. If he really enjoys a mindless action movie, and feels it does everything it sets out to do as well as it could be done, he might well give it four stars. If he is frustrated with a much more challenging and worthwhile movie, because it fails in a few key areas, he might give it two and a half or three stars. This is not because the former movie has more content in it, more features, covers more ground than the arty movie. It’s just because it is more successful. Given an personal choice between the two, he would not hesitate to recommend the latter over the former. It’s almost certainly a better movie. It just doesn’t accomplish its goals as well.

I would argue, from what I have seen of San Andreas, that it falls short of its goals in a lot of places. It’s got some great ideas that it doesn’t really know how to follow through on. After you leave the first city, most of the game’s potential falls apart. Not only that; it also limits the player in a lot of silly ways that the earlier games in the series did not. Does Castle of Shikigami 2 have the same problems? I don’t know. I’ve not paid much attention. People seem pleased with what it has to offer. I’ve seen nowhere near the same kind of annoyance that I’ve seen with San Andreas. For what that’s worth. And I think it’s worth something.