A reader sent this Reddit thread my way on Twitter. Looks like it struck a nerve with some gamers.

I'm not sure how well the implicit criticism applies to Kotaku since we disclose this info in the review boxes, but it is something to think about as more non-gaming outlets begin to cover/criticize games. Judging from my own experience working for some mainstream media outlets in my pre-Kotaku life, I'd say that standards (especially with regards to completion) aren't really enforced—if they're even established in the first place.

One piece that blew up at the WSJ a while back, for instance, was this very negative take on Borderlands 2. A big part of the author's criticism stemmed from the fact that he found the single-player gameplay tedious compared to shooters like Call of Duty or Halo.

I understand why many commenters were frustrated by a comparison that they felt was unfair. But at the same time, it's worth considering that a relative newcomer to this game found the timesink that Borderlands required "overwhelming," and prohibitively so. Putting countless hours into a game is too often seen as a virtue in its own right. Reviewers shouldn't just track their own time, but also consider whether asking their readers to give upwards of 100 hours of their lives into something is worth it as well.