The Saddle, etc. + Review maybe should be MORE biased

Seems my upgrade to Firefox 3 has freed up some of those lag issues and the image function works again, so I'll stop trash talking and get back to not updating my blog with esoteric commentary.

I like that Giant Bomb has chosen to go with the personal reviewing style, a style I think more reviewers of popular media should at least try.  While there is always something to be said for the detached, third-person review (it's a lot easier to read, for starters), I think the more personal a given medium gets, the better it is to talk about it like it's your opinion and not pretend everyone is on board with you.  With non-fiction I think it's easier to be detached, but when you start talking about genres of fiction being tired without fessing up that you don't like that particular genre, it feels like the elephant in the room no one's talking about.  You should probably have some sort of personal disclosure anyway, just to get the reader to know what context you're talking from.

That said, some of the reviews here have bugged me a bit.  I guess even with the acute first person style, I sometimes get the vibe that they're not explaining ENOUGH of their personal opinion in the review, and I'm left wondering what the hell they mean by a given criticism.  I've felt this especially with TANG, Ryan's movies about video games that aren't also video games feature.  I love watching it, as I'm into movies anyway and often don't see this stuff (I'm hoping he'll check out Postal just to see if he can stand it).  I have trouble getting on board with him though when he starts his rants about things being "touchy-feely," "pretentious," "quasi-spiritual nonsense," or any other of the many words he uses to trash something without their being concrete enough to know where he's coming from.

I'm not big on things being spiritual without some sort of grounding, myself.  If the movie expects me to care about this stuff, it's at least going to have to do some work to bring me with it.  Sometimes I think that's what Ryan is getting at; it's not so much the subject matter itself, it's that it wasn't portrayed properly.  The subject perhaps didn't earn the position it was trying to convey.  THAT is a really good criticism, and I think I prefer to judge films and games based more on the premise THEY set up than expecting a game or movie to somehow meet my specific needs.  It's just that too often Ryan seems to think we all have his taste in these things, because he seems to commence bashing before we really know just what his version of touchy-feely is.

This is a guy who hugs stuffed animals when he's gotta burp but can't, and who says he gets scared of a lot of things (EXCEPT spiders and scorpions).  I mean, I know the guy is willing to lay things out.  I just wish he'd do it more when it comes to his reviews.  Especially with the word pretentious, which even has two pertinent meanings that don't really intersect.  I think pretentious is probably the most over-used word in criticism, in part because it's never adequately defined.  Instead of saying that something is pretentious, say WHY it is.  Otherwise it's just a rant and not a full criticism.

This isn't just me picking on Ryan, but his style sorta evokes the above in me whenever I see it, so I thought I'd just get it out there now that I'm typing in real time and not typing and waiting to see it on the screen a minute later.  Other than his use of these less-than-concrete words I'd say Ryan's reviews are usually well informed and sensibly laid out, so it's more about terminology than anything big, although I sincerely hope he backs these sorts of claims up a bit more, either by explaining WHY something is pretentious, or just plain illustrating it without even using the buzz words.

It's hard to write a review, I've tried (here, not so much), so this is more sympathetic than antagonistic.  I also won't post this on the forums so I don't seem like I'm trolling or whatever.