Originally Posted by diffusionx
They should read the review to learn if the game is good or not, and then go to other sources (company's website, demos, whatever) to learn the nuts-and-bolts of a game. A review should be a critical examination of a game, not a blow-by-blow overview of the game's feature list.
For example, Im playing Half-Life 2. I plan to write a review on it later but here's what I mean:
GOOD: Examining the quality of Half-Life 2's writing, the quality of characters, if the storyline progression is good, and what not.
BAD: Telling us who the characters are, what they are doing, how the storyline unfolds, etc.
GOOD: Analyzing the quality of the singleplayer and multiplayer gameplay.
BAD: Giving a rundown on all different modes.
GOOD: Saying whether or not the weapons are good, and useful (I find the SMG and pulse gun to be a bit inaccurate, for example).
BAD: Giving a rundown on all the weapons.
See what I mean?
edit: I also think a review of a great product should get you pumped up for the product. Does anyone actually ever feel excitement for a game after reading an IGN review? The reviews are so turgid and stiff. My Complex Analysis textbook got me more pumped for residue theory than IGN's WOW or HL2 review did.