And the Guinness World Record for critical acclaim goes to ...

Today, I was lucky enough to receive a review copy of the new Batman game (now available for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, with PC to follow soon). It's undoubtedly excellent, and anyone keen on Batman – or on action games with fisticuffs, gadgets, stealth and high production values – should rush out and buy a copy.

In fact, the excellence of this game was brought to my attention some days ago by no one less than the Guinness Book of Records. It had been awarded the world record for 'Most Critically Acclaimed Superhero Game Ever' – an announcement which generated no little amusement, confusion and even outrage in the Shopper office.

I think of the Guinness Book of Records primarily through its TV incarnation of Record Breakers. From that I though that records should be measurable, such as the fastest man, tallest mammal or longest period spent sat in a bath of baked beans. These are facts, as far as the limits of human knowledge understand them. Such records are also informative, interesting and entertaining. As are the lengths that some, possibly slightly eccentric, individuals would go to break records and get their name in the book.

I'm not saying that video games don't belong in the Guinness Book of Records. High scores for classic arcade titles are a good example of why Guinness have taken a strong interest in games in recent years – as evidenced by the Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition, see http://gamers.guinnessworldrecords.com.

However, I can't accept the use of review scores as some kind of tangible fact. Reviews are the opinions of individuals or the combined opinions of those working for a publication like Shopper, they are not facts and so shouldn't be used for the basis of a world record. The actual scores are factual, but fairly meaningless without the reviewer's thoughts to support them. For example, just because a product wins a Best Buy award in Shopper doesn't mean its ideal for everyone, it might not be suitable for your needs, or in this case it might be too violent, too difficult, or you may just dislike Batman (though you'd be wrong on this last count).

Guinness has decided upon this record because Batman: Arkham Asylum has the highest score for a superhero-related game on review aggregation site MetaCritic, www.metacritic.com. Metacritic, and other aggregators, like film site Rotten Tomatoes, take a selection of review scores from around the web and average them together using a variety to methods to give one overall score. It's a useful way to get some idea of critical opinion at a glance, but the number generated is a very rough guide to quality, and doesn't belong in the Guinness book of records anymore than my personal choice of favourite film does.

It's also worth pointing out that the 'record' was awarded on the day the game was released, when many reviews still weren't out. Metacritic's ratings don't include every review either, making the whole process even more subjective. Finally, its closest rival in the category of superhero critical acclaim, the excellent Spider-Man 2 on the PlayStation 2, isn't even listed on Metacritic as it's too old.

The whole thing is one of the most cynical marketing stunts I've seen for some time, designed to benefit both Eidos and Guinness, but meaning very little in the whole scale of things, and only really succeeding in putting a black mark on Guinness's own record book.