You may be aware that the GWJ front page doesn’t run a lot of reviews. This has been the case since about the time I first registered an account here, and I tend to think that it’s our style and perspectives that attracted me here.
Instead, we run what we call “perspectives” (and the occasional “anti-review”). What we try to do is to talk about what we find interesting or important. What we find interesting isn't always the sort of thing that shows up in a traditional consumer-oriented game review. It's rarely about graphics, "gameplay" or how much time a game's narrative takes. What's interesting about a game may be more about how that game fits within other similar or dissimilar games. What's interesting may be the way we felt during a game, or some other thing that a game reminded us of. And unless we're talking at some meta level, what we find interesting about games is almost certainly not how many points we would give that game out of some slightly larger number of possible points.
There are many reasons we here at GWJ chose to write the way we do about the things we do. There were reasons not to go this way, too. But as the greater conversation about games has progressed, grown, mutated and spun off its countless tangents, the way we write at GWJ has kept us as an important part of that conversation.