> they play say RTS or some strategy game once every 3 years so anything that seems pretty competent gets a good score even if compared to the peers in the genre it might be weak.

That's not how it is at all for games, though, is it? I mean, there are very few niche genres that gamers (even if they aren't reviewers) haven't tried.

A games reviewer will at least have already played the most popular games for each of the popular genres. You will find it hard to find a games reviewer who hasn't played the top RTS games, the top FPS games, the top Mobile games, the top RPG games, etc.

> That happens more in video games reviews than in movies but often reviewer reviews some title in niche genre well but it isn't anything worth attention for actual fan because it doesn't do anything special over different games in the title or is outright going backward.

But niche genres don't do well anyway. If the game is not a side-scroller, a platformer, a dungeon crawler, an RTS, an FPS, a point-and-click, an ARPG, a hidden object game, an RPG ... what exactly is it[1]?

If the game doesn't fall neatly into a genre, then it's not going to do well anyway, because ordinary players won't be able to review just like the reviewer won't be able to review it - what exactly do they compare it to?

[1] This is one of the problems that plagued Brigador, which didn't neatly fit into a genre and was a failure.