Bad Reviews :
Maybe I'm just an old man, but tghere's one thing that really grinds my goat when I read reviews at IGN, and thta's they constantly use the word 'I'. I was always taught that reviewers should never refer to themselves. Because really, who gives a fuck about them. So instead of saying 'I found the rail shooter sections boring', you should say 'Some players may find the rail shooter sections boring'. Or whatever. This is bad form and the site editors should be picking up on it.
Good reviews :
The Spoony One, Noah Antwiler (spelling?) over at www.thespoonyexperiment.com. His reviews are really good. His attempts at sketch comedy I could skip, but when he actually gives a review of a game or movie I think he's worth listening to and pretty entertaining too. On the downside I think he can be a bit long-winded and can get sidetracked and go off on rants. Someone else who needs a good editor.
For PC gaming only there's one site that dominates and it's www.rockpapershotgun.com. It's 'new' games journalism and can be a bit snooty at times, but very intelligent and deep analysis of everying from hype to game theory, huge releases and indie games. I really wish they didn't limit themselves to PC only, but I guess there's only so much they can tackle. Plus they've linked to a couple of articles I've written on my blog such as the Underdogs interview, so they obviously have good taste and can recognise genius when they see it.
As an aside, I still read sites like IGN and Gamespot, not for their opinions which are usually dross, but for the factual information they include. Developers obviously want to spread infrmation through the widest-read sources they can find, so IGN and Gamespot often get good information early, especially pre-release / previews etc.