I enjoyed this review, especially for its analysis of roguelikes and their practical need for randomness since you could then explain the gimmickry of such randomness in
Spelunky. I can also better understand a discussion
elsewhere on this site as to why reviewers need to pay attention to the reactions of the rest of the gaming community and not just to the game itself -- a discussion of roguelikes in this review would have been worthless if nobody had ever tried to make that connection, but because people think
Spelunky has roguelike elements that kind of analysis is
necessary for it to be a good review.
So basically, I learned a lot from this, more than I expected. And it was fun to read, too.
A question: I admit I don't understand randomness very well (despite reading a discussion of that subject
on this site; I suppose I should re-read those posts), but couldn't adequately detailed scripting mitigate some of the flaws you've described? You said that challenge in a platformer comes from the design and craftsmanship of each stage, but if the block patterns and enemy spawn points for each stage are planned in a sort of second-hand way through generation, could that not come close? Maybe there's even an aesthetic interest in seeing happy coincidences of tile arrangement.
You also write that much of the pleasure from playing a platformer comes from appreciating the design of each stage and the careful arrangement of platforms and enemies to create interesting and challenging spaces. You say
Spelunky gives no such feeling because the next stage is merely another tileset rather than a new "architecture". However, from what little I know of the game, each tileset has different enemies and mechanical elements, like the floors (and lack thereof) in the Ice Caves. Perhaps there are different block patterns in each stage as well? Your only mention of tilesets, however, is dismissive and doesn't mention these differences. I think your analysis of the game's platform design is sufficiently covered in your criticism of its randomness gimmick, but that omission seems like an easy way for people to criticize your review.
Then again, it's the only flaw I could find, and readers could find any number of other reasons to avoid your conclusions, so why care, lol. It's one of my favorite reviews on Insomnia, and I look forward to the rest of your takes on the indie scene.