Games reviews come in all different flavours, and having recently started to follow Cara Ellison's (@Carachan1) and Chris Priestman's (@CPriestman) reviews, I've also been subject to their ire at responses along the lines of "This isn't a real review, all you're doing is talking about things you thought about while playing."
Now I profoundly disagree with the "not a real review" standpoint. Besides, what is a REAL review? In these reviews, the writer gets to lay out the way they felt, the symbolism and the references they picked up, and generally their rather abstract opinion of the piece. This makes for entertaining and useful reading.
The usefulness of the reading isn't quite as pronounced or easily detectable than more by-the-numbers approaches to reviewing. Some reviewers prefer to keep their inner dialogue to themselves, and describe the game as a product. They'll talk about how low a match lasts, and that it makes for a good lunch-break game. That there are over 15 classes to pick from, each with thre