ritics are loving the new Batman game. I am too, but have doubts I’ll still be playing it a week from now, what with a partially completed Bioshock ’survivor mode’ playthrough and The Beatles: Rock Band just around the corner (man, I can’t wait for that one).

Since its release 3 days ago Batman: Arkham Asylum has earned review scores above 90 from most major sites, all of whom are calling it the best Batman video game ever, with some specifically asserting that its replay value is high.

I think it’s a good-looking, atmospheric 3rd person adventure game with an engaging story, and offers nearly a perfect blend of combat and stealth, fisticuffs and gadgetry, horror and comedy, and is tons of fun—in short, it kicks ass, and it’s a must-play—but it probably only has a life of 15 hours total. But apparently these days, if there is anything left to do or collect in a game after you’ve beaten story mode, it equals “good replay value.”

SUSPECT	DESCRIPTION	WANTED FOR
Call of Duty: World at War	High-def FPS with average good looks. One of the "big 2" review sites gave it 9.2, calling it "oustanding."	Having less staying power than COD4, and becoming a dust-collector way too soon, even WITH zombies.
MadWorld	Beat-em-up for the Wii. Aforementioned gaming site gave it a 9.0, calling it “a beautiful piece of moving art.”	Being over in 5 hours, and being too glitchy, slow, and poorly-paced to stay interesting for a second playthrough.
House of the Dead: Overkill	Stylish, funny on-rails shooter; basically Tarantino's Grindhouse reincarnated as a video game. Critics gave it an average score of 8.1.	Being too fucking short. A full-price commercial release with a campaign that you can beat in 3 hours, and soft combat which you can non-strategically button-mash your way through, is just criminal.

***SOUGHT IN CONNECTION: The critics who told you to buy them

Yep, reviewers have stopped realistically assessing the replayability of console games, and a lack of replay value is not emphasized heavily enough in their reviews, or in the scores they hand out.

Who doesn’t love a good conspiracy theory? The fact major gaming sites have referral/link partnerships with major retailers (Gamestop, Best Buy, Amazon) might have something to do with critics’ apparent reluctance to say “rent this game, but don’t buy it,” even though that would often be in our interests, as gamers.

A less paranoid theory goes something like, critics don’t emphasize their replayability evaluations simply because they’re required to go through games at such a rapid pace, and because they get much of their software for free, and replay just doesn’t matter to the guy who will be handed a stack of new stuff to play next week. He may know replay value is an important consideration for consumers, but due to his unique career circumstances he’s out of touch with the common man, no longer in a position… etc, etc. Memo to the guys who told us Prototype was an 8.5 out of 10… are you ever really going to put this game back in your console? Didn’t think so.

I’m not critic-bashing. These guys do a good job—building anticipation for a game, evaluating it using multiple criteria, and doing an engaging write-up; all of this takes talent. When they say a game is enjoyable, it usually is. But many people will buy a game specifically because it received a great review score from Gamespot or ign. And in many instances great scores are handed out games which, if we’re honest about it, have no replay value and will be shelved by most people after about three days. And critics have apparently forgotten that doing so is not normal. That’s the contention of this article, anyway.

High praise indeed

For counterpoint, I picked the brain of Brad Gallaway of gamecritics.com. I find that as a critic he’s usually on the mark with his comments, his writing is great, and I think he strikes the right balance between diplomatic and opinionated… which is awesome. Also, he answered my email, which was even more awesome. So I asked him what he thinks about my hypothesis about critics being generally fucked with regards to the replay value of games.

“Replayability comes down to individual preference more than anything—typical replay activities like collecting items or looking for secrets is endlessly entertaining for some, and coldly disaffecting for others,” says Brad.

Agreed. Repetitive tasks like gold farming and leveling-up, unless there’s some kind of arcade-like minigame involved, make me want to gouge my own eyes out. But some people live for them.

But I have my own gaming compulsions. For instance, I can’t not collect things. If I’ve found 19 of the 20 red coins and go to bed feeling stumped, if it dawns on me at 4am that I forgot to sweep that section in the corner of the map (yes I sometimes think about video games while lying in bed), I’ll get out of bed and go do it.

Also, I’m semi-addicted to the frisbee dog game in Wii Sports Resort. Why flicking my wrist and throwing a virtual frisbee to a cartoon dog brings me so much happiness, I don’t know. People are weird. I don’t doubt that there are freaks out there who play Zelda just for the fishing.