Well, uh, I was stating a fact regarding Journalism itself and its code of ethics. Journalists, of course, do whatever they please. But you can say the same about every other job, really. Like politicians.

Interesting points so far. Maybe to be fair there should be a standard by which all reviews follow. Like say every review will cover;
- Presentation (graphics, animation, UI, voice acting, sound...etc),
- Lore (story or campaign or generally whatever hook the game uses to keep you playing even if its a simple progression system),
- Gameplay (how the game plays in relation to what type of game it is. Level design. Does it do what it sets ot to do well or does it fail) and lastly
- Value (how much are they asking you to pay for the game? how much content are you getting and how long does it take to complete the game)

That it, all personal opinions should be taken out of that. If while talking about gameplay you cite that the gameplay is repetitive, boring or broken then thats it. When talking about the value you just talk about the length of the game and if it has replay value.

I personally think that reviewers are becoming a little too opinionated when it comes to their reviews and that in turn adds too much bias to the actual material.

I think games need to be scrutinized more with each time they release that IP. Just for the example I'll use EA and their Fifa because it's released yearly. Same game but scores consistant. They don't change much and yet seem to have copy/paste reviews. They could really benefit from harsher critisism and more nitpicking after each additional release.

The new IPs' we have been seeing released lately have been getting judged way to harsh. These new games are built from scratch. They take more work and time to make. These bad reviews probably gonna hurt new games in the industry unless this trend is changed.

With reviewing a new IP, get good and thorough with it but cheese and rice be gentle. Get harder on the next version if they release that IP next time. Should see better new versions each time or else more of a chance to get different IP for new games being made.

A blackout to other reviews before writing your own is good, but a complete media blackout is not. Understanding the game and the vision / ambition behind it is important. A good reviewer need to decide how to judge a game before judging it. Knowing the design choices, which was executed well and which was not, how those choices contribute to the overall game design. For example, you shouldn't consider linear design as bad in itself. But you should judge how well it served the story and the level design (like in The Last of Us), if the story and level design were bad then linearity was indeed a bad choice. Of course, you can have an opinion about open world would have served the overall experience better, but that doesn't make what the developer tried to achieved is bad.

Other example is FF XV (not reviews but still..), criticizing having all male characters with an obvious lack of understanding of the point behind it. 

Step 1. Be RolStoppable.
Step 2. Write review.

Reviews are pretty much synonym for opinion, though. A perfect review is not possible.

We are saying the same thing but differring slightly. I agre with most of what you said.

To further push my point I will dial back the clock to the 90s. Back then we got reviews in whatever monthly issue of a magazine we read. Back before the internet and media overload. Then, the first time most reviewers got there hand on a game and could actually see enough of it to talk about it was when they got a review build of the game. And they were forced to give the game enough time since the issue carrying the review was gonna be a month  away anyways. Then we got a lot better reviews than we do now. Then when yu read a review, it pretty much summed up exactly how you would feel when you actually play the game. The reviewers then captured all the little naunces that made a game great or annoying. Not so much these days.

I still feel that a complete blackout is better. A game would speak for itself. Whatever vision ws intended by the develoer will either cary through or not. If the developer was making a survival horror, but after your blackout you came out feeling like it was an action game where you blasted away at grotesque looking things then that is what the game was. You would say its an action game with some cheap scare tactics here and there. But going into a game review with a preconceived notion of at least what to expect in my opinion already gurantees that your opinion is going to be slanted, either for better or worse.

unfortunately what you are saying is very true... but it doesn't end there.

Reason for this is just how important these reviews have become. Studios actually get/miss bonuses if their game score below  certain review average. You have things like review embargos or lobbying for better reviews. You have situations where a good or bad review can completely influence how well or poorly a game sells. Reviews are serious business. hence why I insist that they need to be taken much more seriously.

While you do have a good point, but what you are suggesting is not practical or realistic. We are becoming more and more connected by the day, there is no other way around it.

I agree that they should be taken more seriously, as all of that is quite true. The gaming industry as a whole needs to be taken more seriously inside and out, though.

There's no such thing as a perfect review, but there are such things as good and bad reviews. What composes a good review, in my opinion, is having a good writing structure (e.g. review each category), depth in detail, and most importantly, open mindedness. Way too many games get docked from being compared to other games when they weren't even intended to be like them.

This generation is unique in that there are games that are designed to be built on over an extended period of time (e.g. Destiny and Driveclub). What they are now will be drastically different from what they will be a year later. This is problematic for reviews because consumers want to hear people's opinions stat so they can make their decisions, but those opinions are based on "unfinished" products. Maybe, reviewers should either update their reviews or make a new one months later.