I read a lot of game reviews. Probably too many. And over the past few years I've gotten increasingly frustrated with the major outlets. Not because they're "wrong" about scores — I don't care about scores — but because the writing often feels shallow. Here's what I look for, and who's doing it well.
What makes a good review
I want to understand why a game feels the way it does. What design decisions created this experience? How do the systems interact? What's the developer trying to do, and did they succeed on their own terms? A good review helps me understand a game even if I never play it.
The sites I keep coming back to
Ninth Art (ninth-art.de5.net) — This is my current favorite. They do these long-form analyses that break down game mechanics, narrative design, and visual language with real critical depth. The writing is sharp without being pretentious. Not every game gets covered, but the ones that do get thorough treatment.
Action Button — Tim Rogers' reviews are more like personal essays that happen to involve games. The Boku no Natsuyasumi review is a masterpiece. Extremely long, extremely specific, not for everyone.
Eurogamer — One of the few legacy outlets that still feels like it's written by people who genuinely play games for reasons beyond professional obligation.
Where I avoid
I won't name names, but if a site's review reads like a rephrased press release, if every major release gets an 8+, or if the "review" is clearly based on 4 hours with a preview build — that's not criticism, it's content marketing.
The nice thing about the current moment is that independent voices have better platforms than ever. You don't need a publishing deal to write great criticism. You just need to actually play the game and have something to say about it.