Those gosh-darned video game reviews

I've been thinking about how game reviews should be written lately, specifically how the content should be formed. I've written 20 or so reviews on Giantbomb, and more often than not, I find myself turning away from synopsizing story and writing about every single detail of the game, and instead focusing on what I think the essential points are. Analysis and assertions about the experience are much more enjoyable for me to read, and I'm wondering if some other user reviewers feel the same. The "objective" critique model doesn't work for me, especially on a website like Giantbomb where the wiki can answer questions about the minutiae of a game. I just end up feeling like I'm wasting time and space that could be devoted to actual stimulating critique. What do you all think? Does a review need to have simple, "this game has X feature and X feature" for you? Or is a discussion about the core components of the game and their affect on the experience of playing the game more your style? Or possibly even a mix?

I want to know what it's like playing the game. If that means the specifics of the game need to be explained then so be it. For example, I reviewed Crysis 2 on GB and I needed to give the details of the suit mechanics in order to explain what it is like to play the game. But specifics aren't always needed. I also did a review of Snatcher and spoke in generalizations most of the way through. The point is to get the experience of playing the game down into words so that the reader gets a better sense of what to expect of they play the game.

a good review will tell us what the game is like in practice rather than in theory

Check out KillScreen. Especially the Fallout New Vegas and LA Noire review.
I know if a game is for me by watching some gameplay, so I appreciate when a review goes the extra mile.

You have it mostly right. Analysis of the main points of what makes a game good or bad are definitely what the review should be about, but don't underestimate the power of the synopsis. A brief summary can help put all of your claims into some sort of context. Remember, the people reading your review PROBABLY HAVEN'T PLAYED THE GAME YOU'RE REVIEWING.

@Video_Game_King said:

You have it mostly right. Analysis of the main points of what makes a game good or bad are definitely what the review should be about, but don't underestimate the power of the synopsis. A brief summary can help put all of your claims into some sort of context. Remember, the people reading your review PROBABLY HAVEN'T PLAYED THE GAME YOU'RE REVIEWING.

I don't mean leaving out all synopsis, but just making it as brief as possible. Not only do I find long summary boring, but I've had pivotal moments ruined by reviewers going too far with plot related stuff.@easthill said:

Check out KillScreen. Especially the Fallout New Vegas and LA Noire review. I know if a game is for me by watching some gameplay, so I appreciate when a review goes the extra mile.

I checked out KillScreen's Fez review and couldn't stand it. It was ridiculously long.

You need to answer the yes or no question of if someone should buy this game. Talk about the stuff that would actually help someone formulate an opinion.

i think you're totally right. chances are that whoever is researching a game is going to be looking at many reviews and not just one, and there is going to be A LOT of reiteration between reviews. So many reviews just read so so so similarly, spouting the same old interchangeable garbage. Focusing less on what a reader most likely already knows well before a review even comes out is only a good thing.

Man, websites like giantbomb provide so much video and so many impressions about games upfront or shortly after release I rarely look at reviews anymore. At least not to make a purchase decision. I will watch or read reviews after i complete a game just for discussion sake. So more to the point of the OP, yes i would much rather read a critique that assumes you already know the basics of the actual game.