That's an interesting point, you'd think any professional video game website would try to gin up as much interest in everything as possible. And yet that's not what usually happens. There really are some bizarre cultural affectations in the video game world that run deep enough to seemingly counter business logic. Too many folks took schoolyard "kiddy" taunts deep, and were also the kind of people to become "professional game journalists".
The big problem is the way the industry grew. Video games were treated as toys and kid's stuff through it's early beginning in the 80's with Arcades, Atari and the NES / Master System. It's not like there were really professional reviewers discussing the artistic or technical merits of arcade games or early home consoles. Nintendo released Nintendo Power as a way of just advertising more titles for people to buy along with hints, tricks and maps to provide some practical value to the magazine. However, most reviews of games were done on the playground or just visiting with friends.
Things changed a bit in the SNES/ Genesis era as other gaming magazines started coming out but, to my knowledge, it was all done by fans and enthusiasts of the medium. As young gamers grew up and went to school and college and learned how to critically assess things like literature, movies or art, some have tried applying that to video games but there's never been a majorly successful or highly regarded critic of the medium like say Roger Ebert, Pauline Kael or Gene Siskel in movies. They had much influence in the medium they reviewed but were also very good at their craft though they could have their foibles and faults. Yet even now, you can read back and their work on movies they reviewed and so much of it still holds up and is useful. Who can you say that about in the world of video games?
It was in the GameCube era that I first saw video game reviews appearing newspapers I read. Often it seemed to be done by a young person in their late teens or early 20's going by their picture next to their name. I often thought they were probably freshly hired by the newspaper and it was their first job or an intern trying to break into the newspaper industry and get experience. It's not like video game reviews or news was given a prominent place or there own section in newspapers. Usually it was in the back section of the culture or entertainment section. Even today, if one watches the news, you don't see much discussion of videogame related news like with announcements of TV programs or movie titles. If videogame discussion comes up, it is usually because of how much money something made or how its influencing society at the moment like videogames causing violence or Pokémon Go causing disruption with people wandering about everywhere on their phones. It's not regarded as a serious medium but that's no surprise considering the people who do cover it.
The internet soon took over as the place to get videogame information. After sites like IGN, 1UP or GameSpot kind of arose as places for people to get their reviews and latest news on games, YouTube came along allowing people to better see the games in action. Yet, again, the people on YouTube who have become big players in reviewing videogames aren't really of a high caliber. I highly doubt they would be considered serious critics by their peers or others in the wide range of critics and reviewers. It goes back to the debate of whether games are art which is still be discussed. If anything, most YouTube personalities or bloggers are of the form of an editorial than a review. Add in the problem of sites and YouTubers dependent on advertising, trying to stay friends with people in the industry to get news or scoops or getting swag and handouts from developers, it further keeps the medium from gaining any kind of integrity or legitimacy. Heck, there are plenty of times people seem to write reviews having only played a small portion of a game or not at all and the review is full on incorrect facts or missed information. As such, I don't see the industry ever being considered an actual enrichment for culture anytime soon with the state of the Gaming Journalism we currently see even if actual, individual gamers would disagree. I didn't follow any of the gamergate controversy last year (or is it now 2 years ago?) but I remember some of the points being raised about game journalists painted a pretty bleak picture. It comes off as amateurs trying to pose as professionals.
That's not to say everyone involved in trying to review or cover games is of the same cloth or not worth listening to. I've stuck around with Nintendo World Report this long since I've always respected the reviews and information it provides. My favorite game reviewer of the past couple years has been Grubdog from the Pietriots website. I love his style of writing. He seems to be able to capture the essence of the fun to be experienced in a game and put that into his writing and review of a title to give you a great idea of what playing the game is like or could be like. There are times after reading a review of his, I immediately want to go and buy a game (or if I have it) start playing it myself. There are titles I wasn't interested in before that he's made me interested in because of how he writes up his experiences with them. Honestly, he's the closest the reviewer I'd compare in that Roger Ebert mold. Yet, again with Pietroits or NWR, these are volunteers and fans who are putting out this content. Unpaid non-professionals but they do it better than the actual professionals these days.
That's why I think Nintendo is right to consider their business as toys or just games and not worry about their games creating a grand artistic statement. It keeps them on the right side of game development where the focus is keeping a player entertained and not about an epic story to rival a Hollywood production. Doesn't mean the games they make can't have artistic merit or plot in them but they are smart enough to realize that shouldn't be the main focus in making a game and why they're still standing today.