Rage is a game that has interested me, though I have yet to play it. I've been reading and watching reviews all around the internet, and I've become somewhat annoyed by a common trend in video game reviews lately.
The biggest criticisms for Rage have been about it not being an open world, about not being RPG enough, about not having a compelling story. Almost every review has made a comparison to Borderlands or Fallout 3, even though it is not either game. Gears 3 wasn't criticized for not being RPG enough or for being too linear, so why is Rage? Because it is post-apocalyptic, and other post apocalyptic games have been open world RPGs? Will Battlefield 3 or MW3 be knocked for not having an in depth crafting system? Rage should be praised for adding these light elements, not knocked for not being deep enough.
I recognize that games should not be reviewed in a bubble. At the same time, games should be appropriately compared. You wouldn't compare Mario Kart to Gran Turismo simply because they are both racing games. You wouldn't compare Vanquish to the Armored Core series simply because they both have you fighting robots.
As I said, I haven't played Rage yet, so maybe these reviewers are in the right. Perhaps comparing Rage to Fallout 3 and/or Borderlands is appropriate; after all, they all take place in the first person and are set in a post-apocolyptic world. I'm not saying Sterling's review is wrong, or that his score of 7 is too low. A 7 is still a solid game, and as I said, I haven't played it yet so what do I know?