The thing is, with games, they don't really need to develop.
Today, I sat down with Call of Juraez: The Cartel. The second I fired the gun it was trouble. It was sloppy, collision was suspect, and the guns were weak. It was 30 seconds. Four hours later, I'm taking a break for a bit, and I can assure you, for another four hours today I'll be using those same mechanics, doing the same things. I don't really need those other 10 or so hours to know it's pretty much a mess. The story is only the hole in the process now.
Reviewing games is vastly different than other media. Movies need to be a complete narrative, so do books. Games are really mechanical, selling themselves on their feel. You don't always have to play a game "enough" to know where you stand. You do because it's a job and it's required of you, but the opinion isn't going to change whether or not you beat it. I'm not going to hate Juarez anymore than I do now simply because I have a deadline.
People love to pick apart reviews, like the Catherine thing. I talk to the reviewer all the time. He was prepared for a backlash. Gamers are simply rabid when it comes to this stuff. They see a "7" and freakout. Alice? Yeah, Alice was rough. Levels dragged on for hours with no end in sight. One sitting, two sittings, doesn't matter. Maybe that didn't bother you. I was invested in the world but there was too much of it. A 6.5 is more than fair in my eyes, maybe not in yours. 'Tis the nature of reviews.
Keep in mind that in a great game, something truly special, you're never tired of it. The design is such that it takes an inherently repetitive medium and makes it something spectacular. Most games today are a lot of filler to fill some requisite length, and they're going to be called on it. The great ones stand out and you don't want that marathon session to end.