Game journalism, like a lot of journalism, is weird because there's no real criteria to become one, no culture of vetting standards when employing someone, whimsical definitions of what constitutes as a review and what people expect from them, and all happening in a digital age where literally anybody could become a "video game journalist" by setting up a domain or YouTube channel or whatever. You just never really know what you're getting from the individual penning a review, including their skill level, presumptions, bias, experience with the franchise and genre, and so on.
Reviews in general are also weird. I mean, if we're going to really review/analyse a creative work we should be spoiling the shit out of it. Because exploring critique requires looking at all the pieces, those that work and done, and discussing them indepth. But you cant do that in a review, because your review is for people who don't own the game. So you're left trying to cobble together what is ultimately a weird blend of critical analyse of a creative work's merit, and also its value in time and money, much like a buyer's guide.
And you have to do this while ensuring the game is completed, and to the best of your ability, before the embargo date. It's shit. Glad I threw in the towel ages ago.
