Well I didn't imply women specifically were casuals either, you picked that up by yourself. That's why I specifically said "for example" in that sentence. No need to be too sensitive about women in gaming, we have too much of that going on around the industry already.

And yes, some reviews are better than others. That's why I posted that 5th requirement, that the reviewers ought to be actual core gamers themselves because lots of them don't understand games so much. Some of them like to make reviews as if they're listening to a song or watching a movie.

1. Disagree. Sometimes, a game can be so bad that you just can't bring yourself to finish it, and as long as the reviewer informs the readers about the fact that the game wasn't finished, I have no problem with it. If it's disclosed, the reader can decide if he/she thinks the review is valid or not.

2. Kinda disagree. I mean sure, sometimes reviewers who have a lot of experience with a particular genre or game-series can provide more thorough criticism, but I do think a fresh look can be valuable as well.

3. Still need to make my mind up about this one.

4. The important thing is, again, disclosure. As long as people who have agreed to one deal or another inform the audience about it, it's fine. Then the audience can decide if it wants to trust a review or read/watch something else.

5. I think people who play games consistently, certainly have a much better understanding about the current state of the medium/industry and can therefore provide a more in-depth and balanced review, but to say that people who play games more casually shouldn't write professional reviews doesn't really seem fair to me.

1. Nope. I think there comes a point in every game where one can say "I understand what this game has to offer". In some games (usually particularly flat, terrible or one trick pony games), that point comes very soon. In others, not so much. I think reviewers should play as much as they think they should play to be able to accurately judge the game. No need to set a certain number on it, just make the reviewer state how much of the game they played somewhere in the review.

2. Ha, nope. I often say "the purpose of a review is to inform the consumer"...so what about consumers who are new to a genre? If someone hasn't played many of a particular genre, then their review is more useful for those who haven't played many games in that genre, and less useful for those who have. That opinion is still perfectly worthy of being heard and perfectly valid, assuming it is a well written review.

Additionally, bias towards a genre can be just as strong as bias against a genre. This system just removes half of the complete picture, giving an overly rose tinted view of games.

3. I think you contradicted yourself on this point, which just goes to show how divisive this can be. You say that they should review a game based on its launch day condition, yet you then say that they should review the game based on its condition a full two weeks after launch? This is just ridiculous. I don't think there should be any "rule" here as here is no right way to do it. Just be clear with what your policy is and that should be just fine.

4. Ha, a contract? With who? Their employer? This is just a bit silly...if a site has such a low standard of ethics that it allows skeevy practices to continue, then simply stop going to that site. A contract is just a silly way of dealing with this issue.

5. Another needless rule. First of all, what sites do you go to that feature people who barely game writing reviews? Actually, thats really all that needs to be said. I consider myself to be a pretty big gamer, yet I often play games fairly slowly. It sometimes takes me literally years to play through a game. Now that wouldn't be very useful for a review site ("YOUR REVIEW IS THREE YEARS LATE!!!"), but I think that my opinion of the game is just as valid as someone who marathons games. There has been a lot of talk about the fact that reviewers are often pressured to rush through games to get through them on time, and that just isn't a natural environment for your average gamer. Once again, as long as the consumer is educated on the conditions of the review, I don't see a problem.

-Overall, all of these problems can be overcome by eliminating review scores. When the Polygon review of Bayo 2 came out, my complaints weren't so much "this review shouldn't exist", as it had every right to exist, and it could be helpful for a certain group of people (prudes). My complaint was "should this really factor into the score". Without a score, this wouldn't be a problem and none of these things would really be much of an issue

First step should be to stop calling it "journalism". Not an ounce of that to be found anywhere when it comes to games media.

Exactly. People need to stop taking the 'journalism' seriously if it is just never going to be serious anyway.

Don't think game "journalism" is completely nonexistent, but I do think calling it game "criticism" would be better in most cases.

Professional video game hobbyist. At their very best they can be called critics. 

Sounds nice in concept, but in reality those things would be hard and plain time-consuming to enforce.

#3 exactly it's a review and it should review the game as is not with the expectations that it will be fixed. Bugs aren't always fixed so I don't know why you're under the assumption they are. Also the review can be updated later on once they're fixed like Polygon does.

I agree with all your points, specially the first.

One thing that piss me off is that most reviewers barely play a game before making a review. When other journalists review a book, an album, a show, a movie, they don´t take them only by half, do they? I think the same should apply to games.
Of course, finishing the story mode of a specific game can take way longer than reading a book, but many, many reviews suggest that people sometimes barely play 15-20 min of game before reviewing (looking at you, IGN). I think that reviewers should play at least 40% of the main mode (story mode) before reviewing.

Now, being frank.... the so-called videogame press is so full of fanboys and people who do not appreciatte the variety that this industry offers....., that it can´t be saved.