I think this is a more complex topic than people are giving it credit for. The question of what is an agreeable reviewer is entirely dependant on how you view your games experience. I've somewhat addressed this before in asking what the role of cultural critisism is in our medium. I have recently expanded this question and I am seeking an applicable Theory of Games. To this end I have been doing a lot of research. One of the fundamental points I have come across is a differentiation between the world of staff critics and that of a more academically driven point. I think that in this day and age the distinction may be collapsing somewhat, but let me continue along this line of reasoning to illustrate my viewpoint.
There are an infinite number of ways to look at the purpose of critisism, but I will focus on two viewpoints. Let me call these two viewpoints the practical and the theoretical. In the practical viewpoint, we look at games as a pragmatic entertainment medium. In this way, the best practical critics will relate to us their experience using a method that gives us the ability to reasonably estimate what our own experience of the product will be. This sort of critisism needs expressive wording and the audience needs to be able to inhabit the headspace of the reviewer in order to understand that moment. To this end the subjectively significant needs to be espoused. This is where a system of ethics comes into play, or at least a personal code. However, practical criticism is grounded in the here and now. It is inherently affected by the popular climate to a deep degree. The degree by which we allow practical critisism to take into account these factors is really what is debated. Personally, I don't really mind either way, so long as it is logically consistent and spelled out transparently for the readers to evaluate.
Of course, practical critisism really breaks down when we reduce it to a number. I think we should, as an industry, get rid of numerical scores.
Now, when it comes to the theoretical: I see the purpose as to set up these sort of formal systems for looking at games. This is important, because it systematizes aspects of games that would otherwise be unstated, and it also provides these formal definitions for artists to push and question. This is the sort of critisism that, to me, pushes the art forward precisely because it creates a larger dialog as to the nature of gaming. In this, we need logically consistent views as well as a degree of academic rigor. I feel that a lot of the practical critics of today see that there is a need for this sort of critisism and are trying their hand at it by mixing it into their practical reviews. Any critic that asks "What is a game?" is in effect doing this.
I get the feeling that, across the industry, we tend to idealise the film industry in our seeking for artistic approval. I have heard these arguments that more or less boil down to that we need games to come into the public sphere with the trappings of the Auteur Theory. Now, the reason why I say this is because it is widely held that the Auteur Theory is what finally brought cinema into the current public acknowledgement. It is born out of American individualism, which was widely popular in the time that film was coming into popularity. Autour Theory provided a convenient way to link the films of a given director, so that even the lowly crime thriller could be referenced in the same breath as a surrealist masterpiece.
Of course, in film theory this is still highly debated. For instance: To what degree does David Lynch maintain his auteurship over the PS2 commercials he was hired to produce? Or for instance, to what degree do Ridley Scott's early commercials play into the technical analysis of his films? Today, this theory is too old not to be tested at every turn, and our medium is simply too young for it. Instead, we are thrust into the world of prominent post-structuralism. The Author is Dead, so the challenge becomes... how do we establish legitimacy in this climate?
I think the only answer to this, given the current trends is... with text. We must make more text, we must tie games into the discussion of other art forms. We must allow it to become so prolific and open, mutable and personal that it touches life every day. Then, we must analyze it. We must use Autour Theory, we must use Feminist Critique, we must use Structuralism. Once we establish the traditions and the deviations, the transgressions and the apologetics we move necessarily into art. Our legitimacy becomes de facto.
To this end, my idea of the perfect games journalist is one with something to say.
