When a game reviewer looks at a game that may or may not be derivative, should they assume that their audience knows what they are talking about? 
 
I see this in reviews all the time.  Some games "borrow" ideas and concepts from other games and sometimes they down right rip them off.  The problem with this comes around when the game needs to be reviewed.  Often, the reviewer would say "This game is so much like God of War, you might as well just play that instead." Or something to that point.  The reviewer is assuming that the reader not only owns a PS3, but also has played God of War.  Is that assumption justified?  In this economy, not everyone has the resources to own more than one system.  
 
That assumption, I feel, is a little off.  Wouldn't it be better to review the game without assuming the reader has played every game released on every console this generation?  Especially system exclusive releases.  I'd like to see reviews of a game that don't really mention any other games but judge the reviewed game on it's own merits alone.  Sure the game might be a God of War clone, or a twin stick shooter, or another Diablo Clone.  But if you have never played any of those source games, then the concepts would be new to you and any comparisons between the two games would be lost on you. 
 
I could be wrong, but I feel that the majority of gamers out there haven't played every popular game on every console and any assumptions that they have is off the mark and invalid. 

A good review will provide enough information that you should be able to interpret this type of thing for yourself. If you have no way of playing God Of War, then the rest of the review in question should tell you whether or not another game is an appropriate substitute.

But that's my point.  It wouldn't be a substitute for God of War if you have no idea what it is.  Say you played Dante's Inferno first, then God of War.  You would think that God of War was derivative of Dante's Inferno. 

Well then you faced the issue of space. A reviewer can't recount the entire history of a genre in every review. In the end, you are better off having different reviewers for different audiences. GB serves people who follow the industry closely. The New York Times (I'm assuming that they do game reviews here) serves people who have only a casual interest, so their review will focus on that type of information.

Keep in mind of course, a good review will also contain enough information that the reader will have the tools to do further research on any aspects that they are unclear about.

Well said.  How about games that are judged poorly simply because they are too much like another game on another console?  
 
Look at Dante's Inferno for example. 

@TekZero: Again, that is a decision that you should be able to make for yourself when reading the text of a review. Most reviews will break it down at the end and give you the information that you need. Take the GB review of DI for example:

Imitation is an open invitation for comparison, and while it's mostly competent from a technical perspective, it's all very rote. Since God of War is a PlayStation 3 exclusive, I suppose there's some merit to the way Dante's Inferno exposes this very specific style of character-based action game on the Xbox 360, but it's clearly an imitation, and I never got the sense that the game aspired to much beyond simple reproduction.

To most of the GB audience, this will be enough to make us completely disinterested in the game. However, it does tell the non-Sony segment (keep in mind that this really means anybody who doesn't own a PS2, which is a pretty small group) that this game is at least somewhat comparable. At some point the onus is on the reader to interpret the text of a review relative to their own specific needs.

That's exactly why I think originality (and, obviously, the lack thereof) should not be considered in determining a game's quality. So what if Super Street Fighter IV plays exactly like Street Fighter IV (don't fight me on this example; I'm just pulling names out of my ass)? If you've never played Street Fighter IV, then it's not going to factor into your enjoyment of the game. Don't determine a game's quality through comparisons, damn it!

Yeah, since I don't play All Games Ever, at times the comparisons, especially if they're used in actual judgment of the game's value to the reader, seem too niche for it to be credible. I'd rather they actually describe the mechanics rather than assume we know everything. 
 
The worst offenders are those who just assume that because the game is similar they can save themselves some time and say it's a clone. That's just being lazy and failing at the role of reviewer.
 
People who never had a PS2/3 couldn't play God of War, too, so you such a review would be patently unhelpful. If a game is similar, or even clones, the mechanics of another game for another platform, it's not enough to say it's the same. It's more important to say if it's any good.
 
But the reality is that game reviewers are human beings and it's easy to become jaded by lack of innovation that some major titles have. If you happened to spend a long time completing God of War for a review only to be handed a cynically copied version of it, your gut response, very important in reviews in my opinion, is to compare it to the game that left some grooves in your mind. Whether or not it's helpful, it's honest. If all reviewers do that, then it doesn't help the uninitiated and is nigh worthless as an independent report, but if at least some take the time to go into the details, we can rotate between those skillful and distant enough to let us outsiders in on the mechanics and theme, then we can orbit outward to the folks who skip over these descriptions and rant about the glut of similarities. I'm just grateful there are so many opinions out there, even if they're a pain to wade through.

I think that comparisons in a review are a great idea. They allow gamers who have already played the original game to get a better view point on the experience and allow others who haven't to try out what may be a superior game with similar mechanics.

Most reviews exist to provide purchasing advice. If a game is derivative of another title and dosn't provide the same caliber of experience that the source provided, then it would be irresponsible for the review to recommend it.  
 
Since the game in question seems to be Dante's Inferno, just because someone hasn't played God of War doesn't mean that the comparison in meaningless. If you are interested in that style of game, then the constant references and the implication that it is a better product should at least pique your interest.  
 
In the end of the day a review can't take into account every variable concerning their audience and comparisons are the most efficient and effective means of description. 

                    Most reviews exist to provide purchasing advice. If a game is derivative of another title and dosn't provide the same caliber of experience that the source provided, then it would be irresponsible for the review to recommend it.   Since the game in question seems to be Dante's Inferno, just because someone hasn't played God of War doesn't mean that the comparison in meaningless. If you are interested in that style of game, then the constant references and the implication that it is a better product should at least pique your interest.   In the end of the day a review can't take into account every variable concerning their audience and comparisons are the most efficient and effective means of description. 

                   

               

I think that's certainly true to a point, the trouble is that some reviewers seem to get swept up in it and lose sight of the game they are actually reviewing. If I read one more game review that says something akin to: "This is a GofW clone, don't bother, play that instead", I'm going to lose it. Just because GoW is good doesn't make any other game that follows it with a similar approach bad or uesless. inFAMOUS was MUCH better then Prototype, and they could be considered similar games, but I would never tell someone that just because they liked inFAMOUS they will like Prototype, or vice-versa on hatred.   I agree that the review should include similarities as a point of reference. ALA, "This game controls like GofW", or "This game has an open-world similar to GTA", but that's where it needs to end. Comparatively reviwing things just doesn't seem like that great an idea to me. You're usually going to end up diminishing the newer one in my book.