What you've said has nothing to do with reviewers not being articulate. I don't personally think it's the job of every single reviewer to go into the ins and outs of every graphic mode and accessibility option. A review is an account of someone's experience with the game, not an exhaustive dissection of every single nuance of resolution, frame-rate and feature set.
Digital Foundry covers the technical aspects you want anyway so I don't really see the issue.
Again, I'm not asking for a dissection. I need assurances.
If the reviewer does not have info on what the game's FPS is (surely easily available from the publisher), is the game's FPS stable in either mode? Yes or no.
Does the game have accessibility options now considered the norm for AAA games? Yes or no.
Did the reviewer encounter any bugs or crashes
post-patch? Yes or no.
Load times? Surprisingly long, or seamless transition between areas?
What did the game's difficulty feel like? Did they play around with settings? How were the controls? Did they feel snappy or counter-intuitive? What does the audio sound like? (a valid question considering AAA games from the likes of Arkane sound like trash)
In short, what the fuck is the experience like for the consumer as a player.
Some reviews read like film school essays, pontificating on Aloy's journey, inexplicably spending 200 words recapping HZD for the reader, lavishing praise on the devs for making a masterpiece. Cool, that's nice. I'm glad you liked it. Shame you couldn't tell me what it feels like to play it.
To state the obvious, I'm not brushing all reviews with this rant-brush. Just the ones I keep finding with dismay. Ironically to the people asking if I want a 'buyers guide', these reviews are the ones that sound like official press releases.
