aspro said:

This is a good approach, one which I will adopt. See, when I read your reviews, or do the show, I completely disregard your determination on the actual value of what it is you are examining. I am more interested in the response the thing produced, and then how you chose to articulate it.

I think most folks start the other way around, determining their own opinion on a thing, and then dispensing or embracing what the reviewer has to say based on their existing view.

When I read a review, as with the consumption of any of my media I want two things (in order of importance):

1. Authenticity.

2. Entertainment.

I am not looking for reviews to validate my beliefs.

If a review is not authentic, then it has no value (some reviews). If it is authentic and not entertaining it holds less value (most reviews). If it is both authentic and entertaining, then I'm happy.  Most of the reviews in EGM were like this.

Reviews in Play were entertaining, but usually not authentic (they were angling for advertising dollars).

Most reviews these days (IGN, Gamespot, Game Informer) are just sheerly incompetant.  Seme outlets, like Games TM, EDGE, Eurogamer and Giantbomb are usually almost always authentic and usually almost entertaining, which is why I still read them.  Tom Tower's work is consistently both.

I fully agree with this.

...  but that doesn't mean that writing a good review is harder than making a good game.

aspro said:

^Okay, that is fair. There are parrallels between the two movements that I had overlooked. EDIT: Bloody quote system! This post is in regard to your post-modernism/ Nihilism explanation of Foolz post.  Jesus, if this gets any more convoluted we'll need footnotes.

What's wrong with the quote system?  I've never had any problems with it.  In fact, I think it's very elegant in comparision to the alternatives I've seen elsewhere.