Just throwing my hat into the ring in support of Bob.
I like that he takes the time to use a geographically neutral voice when he thinks it's important and think it's a hoot when he drops into Boston townie mode to make a point or change the tone of a discussion. I like that he takes the time to write about geek esoterica because while I'm interested in the "[Whatevers] Are Weird" themes part of my appreciation comes from getting the chance to learn about things without having to exhaustively read / view / research about them on my own. I like that he ties this kind of background information to a review or larger discussion because it reflects an awareness of what contributes to a game, or movie.
I don't know if this next thing is a post-gamergate trope or if I've just been picking up on it more recently but it seems like I read more and more on forums about people who expect reviews to be conducted without letting the reviewer's personal feelings get in the way. This is crazy talk. Writing reviews is inherently subjective, you can't evaluate an experience like it's a math problem with a binary solution. (Hey, whaddya think of Picasso? Well, he used too much blue; I'm going to have to dock him points for that, so?. 2/5? How 'bout Beethoven's Symphony No. 10? What, the pre-alpha release that had to get patched by Cooper - 1/5, he never finished the damned thing.) That's nuts. You review a painting, you write about how you feel when you look at it. You review music, you write about how you feel when you listen to it. A sharp reviewer puts in background information, personal and cultural, to support their claims for how they feel.
And you don't !@#$ing tell them they're wrong to feel a certain way. And they're not telling you how to feel when you look at or listen to a thing.
Look - I don't seriously think folks looking for objectivity are crazy. (though they are weirdly thin-skinned, sometimes). I think maybe what these people are looking for is a synopsis or a summary. Both are useful things but they are not reviews. Also, IMHO it's vastly less interesting to read 'comprised of over fifty separate fragments it features C-minor 6/8 Allegros" than "ZOMFG Ludwig Von blew my mind again because he makes stringed instruments sound like angels farting rainbows!". The first would be a synopsis, both true and objective. The second one is a review, is subjective, and paints a picture of the writer as much as the subject.
I don't expect perfect objectivity from people who review and / or provide opinion articles - which is what MovieBob does. What I do expect is an ability to write clearly enough to explain why they react in one way or another, and to do so consistently over time so I can build a mental map of where they are coming from when I read a review. While I usually agree with MovieBob, I don't always. I'm not bothered that our views don't mesh perfectly because even when we disagree I can see why he feels the way he does.
