I seem to be the only one who liked the review.

The review is more concerned with the game's social commentary than the gameplay mechanics. But if you like to play games as more than pure entertainment, then you need reviews who point out these qualities. Obviously the gameplay is hardly discussed here, but a review doesn't need to cover every angle.

Bringing some random politics into a review? sounds like the average polygon review to me.

Nonsense. This is just a forum. 90% of stuff on here is just people talking shit about whatever. A reviewer is actually supposed to be doing a job. If it was just an editorial where it was made clear that he was investigating the social issues involved with prisons and how they might fit into gaming, THEN you could say we were being equally annoying if I'd complained about it (which I wouldn't have, it's fine to do that as an editorial). As it stands, the guy's a pretentious waste of space who was wasting the audience's time and probably pissing off the developers.

Having a variety of different approaches to reviewing is fine. But if you're going to do something so esoteric, you should probably start a site dedicated to reviewing games from that particular ideology. That way the people who agree with you know where to go (and the people who don't like that approach know where to avoid). You could say that's kinda what's happened with Polygon now. Everyone knows they love injecting social issues everywhere they'll fit (and quite often places they won't).

Just doing it on a mainstream site is so pointless though. You just waste the audience's time.

Huh? Are you sure that was a "review" I just read?

He didn't discuss any game mechanics! He just talked about the history of prisons, the morality of prisons, racism in prisons, and how the game lines up with his opinions on social ethics.

I don't have an issue with someone writing about this stuff, since I'm all for Free Speech. But calling this a "game review" is obscene.