Perhaps "objective" was the wrong word to use.
What I meant, was that reviewers should be more concerned with adequately communicating if the reader would enjoy the game, as opposed to their own feelings on the matter.
Maybe using a specific example will better illustrate the disconnect here. Lets go with Arthur Gies' review of Bayonetta, and ask a few questions. You can answer as many as you want but I'm most interested in #3 and #7:
1.Do you think Gies can't genuinely find the fanservice detrimental to the enjoyment of the game, and consider that relevant to his recommendation of it?
2.Do you think Gies can't reasonable conclude that much of his target audience would be bothered by it as well?
3.What is more subjective about saying "the fanservice detracts from this game" than saying "the story is awful" or "the voice acting is awful", or "the game is ugly"?
4. If Gies ignores what he considers to be a negative aspect, and gives the game its otherwise glowing review, how is that an honest review?
5.It is widely accepted for a movie critic to "penalize" a movie for creative decisions that they felt were detrimental to the experience. Do you accept that kind of criticism in movie reviews, and if so, why not accept it in games?
6.How would someone in "general games audience" outlet like Polygon review, say, a Dynasty Warriors game, without considering their own tastes and the tastes of their readers?
7. Can you paint us a picture of an objective review? Preferably including how you would score all the basic elements of a game including visual design, story, music, gameplay, etc.
