There's a couple of problems with that. The biggest one being that nobody is going to have a good understanding of any match-up. Even the top players are still going to be feeling things out. I don't think it's completely useless (since a lot of the contours of a match-up are fairly obvious to experienced players), but it won't be fleshed out and there's always tech. that can change a match-up.
The other issue is that it's hard to get a read on where a game is going until it's been shaken down a fair bit. Go back and read reviews of BBCT -- some reviews had an idea of some of the silliness of that game, but no one knew just how busted the game was.
Honestly though, I think fighting game reviews from someone with relatively little experience are OK, provided the tone of the review carries as such. It really comes down to who your target audience is, and even a large majority of dedicated videogame players on a site like this don't have much experience with fighting games. The reviews aren't for us, and frankly a serious, in-depth overview is not going to be helpful for most people.
I suppose you filled in some gaps I left untouched. I didn't mention the time frame where a review would be released and I didn't mention the target audience (e.g., whether the audience remains the same as present). I guess the disconnect here is that I do not value the "buyer's guide" concept in the slightest; I see criticism as a nuanced expression of the audience and a way to both record and rank game design (with some "healing" qualities for the writer).
It's a rare thing for me to find a lot of value in a review that drops the day or even week after an embargo is lifted. Compared to that, I'm much more interested in reviews that appear a year or years after the game comes out (which, among other things, usually means buying it is hardly an endeavor that requires a guide). So, I'm also totally okay with the idea of waiting for an EVO before anything is put to print. This is a common expression I see when judging a game's competitive value and the health of its scene. I feel the mechanism for this is already happening, has always happened, it is just the conversation is not evolving to the point of solidifying into pieces of game criticism (
outside dark corners of message boards). This leaves the enterprise solely to the individuals who have no business there in the expertise sense. However, even in the case of having to release review within a game's launch window, consulting players who, you know, can actually play the thing with any sort of competence could only help. And more importantly, having the writer be able to make conclusions and judgments would make a big difference.
The audience is a tricky thing though, it's likely why these reviews haven't naturally come to exist in the first place. For the Kotaku audience, it is clear they are not in need of better reviews, but I can't say if they would be repelled by them. That comes down to how a specific review is written, including the writer's talent for making their words interesting without dumbing it down, and in this context it can be written many ways, of varying lengths and so on. That being what it is, let's move away from that audience and explore the possibility of another, as that better expresses what I want to see accomplished. Fighting game reviews don't need to be written for people seeking buyer's guides; they can be written for enthusiasts, by enthusiasts. The model that most appeals to me are the film blogs that can even manage to one-up the most famed critics in their ability to examine the craft of the medium. These individuals are breaking down film in ways that isn't done in the race to fill up a Rotten Tomatoes page; they are above all else enthusiast writers engaging in an enthusiast conversation. Where this would happen for fighting games if not Kotaku and IGN? Seems pretty obvious to me:
our enthusiast websites (whom seem to already have better reviews, that can likely be improved further). Like I said, the mechanisms are already there. I want to say that moving towards complete, condensed articles where clarity and precision is demanded is good for elevating the FGC discussion. This exists even outside game reviews, as one of the most important series of articles ever written for the FGC (or at least, for myself) was
Seth Killian's Domination 101 (particularly, deconstruction of the scrub).
I've no intention of apologizing for
current fighting game reviews, insofar I have no intent to read them. They will quickly disappear into the ether as disposable writing meant for people with disposable interests always does. If what I'm describing comes to pass, even the target audience of a typical fighting game review will come to understand difference, just as most people understand the difference between film critique and TV Guide. Perhaps then, I'm wrong to describe this as a means to change the present fighting game criticism, when I should instead describe it as a means to turn the FGC into a producer of fighting game criticism of a higher form.
EDIT: Your methodology is highly praiseworthy, Thomasorus. That was an interesting post.