Opinions are like arseholes: best shared in a mutual exchange with friends. One of the reasons we don't allow reader comments on Midnight Resistance is because we feel it would be better for everyone if you would go away and discuss your reactions to our articles with people you know and trust, instead of anonymously engaging in a pointless bun fight at the bottom of every page. An opinion is the unique product of an individual's experience and cultural expectations, like a number generated by multiplying primes, and to post a comment describing all the ways in which some rando's unique opinion differs from your own unique opinion seems like a fundamentally pointless exercise for all concerned.
To reiterate: The fact that you care enough about something to form an opinion is a wonderful thing, and there are lots of people out there in the world who would love to hear what you think, and you should go and find them.
Amid the Bosch-like writhing mass of comment-posting overindulged millennial teens who think their experience of Xbox-era gaming has taught them everything there is to know about games criticism, sites like Video Game Review HQ stand out by virtue of the effort they've put into making an actual website and forming coherent sentances. Their aim is to promote good examples of games writing, which leads to a strange situation where you find yourself reading a review of a review of a game. It seemed appropriate that we should strap ourselves onto the back of this Human Centipede of games criticism and review a review of a review of a game.
Take, for example, their review of Polygon's review of Infamous: Second Son. You can basically break this text into two parts: three short paragraphs of fluffy prose, and then a three-point bulleted list of specific things they enjoyed. Personally, what I look for in a review is some kind of personal response to the thing under review - a description of the experience, how it made the reviewer feel, what it reminded them of, things like that. But the strongest emotional reaction coming through in this review lies in that final bullet point - substantially an underwhelming point to make, and a poor decision from a technical perspective (ie. that the most interesting part of the review comes at the very end, when the reader is most likely to have stopped reading out of boredom already).
Conversely, who cares whether "Infamous is one of the hottest new games to hit store shelves"? If you're writing a review of a review, shouldn't you be focusing on that instead of the game? Aside from specifically calling out Phillip Kollar's writing as "polished, professional and informative" (which even then manages to sound faintly damning when you remember that he is a professionalgame reviewer), that whole opening prose section is full of bland, unneccessary platitudes. You can tell a lot (ie. literally everything) about a reviewer's attitude towards a subject by the things they choose to write about. For example, doesn't it seem strangely superficial to praise a game review for criticising elements of a game, while offering no criticism of the review? If a good review is supposed to ask mature questions and hold its subject up against adult standards, then shouldn't reviewers... you know, do that?
If you're wondering how I could be so down on a website that wants to positively reinforce good writing, consider their (paraphrased) milquetoast argument that "Of course there's corruption in games journalism, but it NEVER benefits the publishers responsible!"
The issue of bribery and corruption in games journalism is often overstated by the clueless children who regularly vomit such accusations into the footwell of professional writing, but anyone who denies it ever happens is either a liar, or such a spectacularly unsuccessful blogger that they've genuinely never come into contact with PR agents or even semi-professional writers. I myself have but a wispy bumfluff of a social network among the UK's scene of young-ish games journalists, and even I know at least two or three writers who are (or were, while they were active) entirely corrupt, willing to promote any old shit in exchange for some free hardware or tickets to a launch event with a free bar. People like these are a minority, but their corporate shilling earns them a disproportionate amount of work, and this sort of individual bribery bullshit isn't even all that big a problem compared to publication-level deals involving things like cover exclusives, early access, and ad revenue!
This kind of attitude seems to permeate all their articles. Whether you're writing about game reviews, games themselves, or anything else, if your idea of 'positivity' involves glossing over anything negative, perhaps you're just making things worse?? But that's just my opinion.