They also acknowledged the things the game did well and gave credit where it was due. And yes, they did take their time going over what they didn't like about the game, but they also were able to coherently explain WHY those things were negatives. The second reviewer touched on everything the game had to offer.

They spent a lot of time harping on all the negatives, and they were cracking jokes about how bad it was the whole time. Now let's say the first reviewer only touched on about 70% of what the game had to offer. Say I looked at 2 reviews for the same game, and I knew for a fact that both creators were giving their honest opinions - neither one of them were thrilled by it, and both gave it a 6 out of 10. But the other big thing for me is that they are both honest and thorough. I definitely think they should be good at articulating, like you said. But I do want to hear from someone who has actually taken the time to experience what those games have to offer. I certainly don't expect them to 100% games before they talk about them. I don't want a review of an open world game that has 100 hours of content, when all they did was spend 20 hours rushing through the main story, with an occasional side quest here and there.

I also want reviews that examine all the aspects of a game. I want to be told the truth about their experience: the positives, the negatives, the little pleasures, and the annoyances. I'm not interested in reviewers who jump on bandwagons and spit whatever they think will get them the most positive feedback and the least hate. With evidence supporting their claims of course. In this context, I'm thinking along the lines of wanting a reviewer who isn't afraid to point out flaws in games that are being praised, and is also willing to acknowledge good things in games that might be widely labeled as 'trash' or 'flops'.

Game reviewers