I guess I'm a little torn on video game reviews. On the one hand, because they are interactive, they are difficult to review the same way one might review a movie or a book. I mean, you can easily write a (very dry) review that just goes over the controls, how technically proficient the graphics are ("This game controls well and when I died I felt it was my fault. I would say the graphics are only pushing the hardware about 78.9 percent as of 9/9/06.") However, that would be an awful review to read.
Okay, so the reviewer needs to inject a little bit of personality into the review. Then how to get around the "Samurai Warrior 2 is not good" or "yawn another Madden" or "capcom needs to draw new sprites" etc??? I dunno! That's why I'm no paid to review games.
However, I would argue that the first step is to NOT have someone review a game that belongs to a genre he or she does not enjoy. It doesn't make sense to have someone review Grand Theft Auto Liberty City Stories if that person hated every other Grand Theft Auto game. Because that doesn't actually review the game for people that might enjoy it. Of course you can't cater to every possible audience.
I think the solution is to be a bit more objective in reviews. It's easy to take the IGN route, get handed a game you hate and realize you can just tear into because 99% of the people reading along will just be giving you high fives in their own minds.
What would be more difficult to do would be to (seriously) try to imagine the following: someone will like this game. What would appeal about this game to that person?
For example, I hate hate hate GTA. I have never enjoyed any of the games in the series, though I keep buying them hoping they will improve. So first of all, don't ask me to review the game.
But if there's a blizzard and I'm the only reviewer that can make it into the office, then here is my plan. First, play though the whole game... if that is impossible, play through enough of the game that I can experience all it has to offer. Next, let's assume I hate the game. (I do). I know it's hard but can I come up with any reason why someone would like this game? Sure I can. GTA offers a large world that is very fun to explore, and at least in GTA SA the designers tried a lot of new stuff. The phyiscs are not realistic but are very entertaining. There's a LOT of game for your $50 (or $20 as the case may be now). Finally, the fantasy thug life appeals to plenty of people, so it's there for them.
Next, I have to state my case for why I did not enjoy the game. No rants, no hyperbole, just my case. In the case of GTA SA, I do not like the controls (and here is why: ex 1, ex 2, etc). Etc etc.
So there, now the review serves two purposes. Even though I did not like the game myself, I have stated my case rather than OMG IT'S AWFUL... and furthermore, I have provided some information about the game for people to be able to grab onto and think, "Well, regardless of the problems he described I like the positive things he's said so I'll give it a shot!"
Many (if not most) reviews are written with these guidelines in mind. Most reviews have some sort of "good stuff/bad stuff" background. However, it takes a very patient and disciplined person to do this, and in my opinion most video game journalists are neither patient nor disciplined. Of course, there's also the market to worry about, and I suspect more people appreciate the hyperbolic and useless reviews you get in most places just because they are "funny."
Anyway, as for review sources I look to, I like to read a mix of professional reviews. I think a good tool is gamerankings. I will usually read the two highest scored reviews of a game, and also the two lowest scored reviews. I try to look for points made in both positive and negative reviews. You can pretty quickly decide if a reviewer is too biased or not by doing this.
P.S. I think a poor way of doing it is the "Madden sucks, but there are plenty of people who like it, so if you like Madden then you'll like this" way of reviewing. You see this a lot in reviews for popular games that aren't really critically popular (King's Field, Warriors series). That's just lazy. It's a given that people that like King's Field will like the newest King's Field. However, a good way to review this game even if you don't like it is to try your very hardest to come up with reasons why you might think people -who are not already fans- might like the game. Obviously, people are not born fans of games. At one point in their lives they decided to try, say, Dynasty Warriors and enjoyed it a whole lot. If you can't come up with any reasons on why people might legitimately like it, you really shouldn't be reviewing this particular game.