That's ridiculous. We're not doing crash tests on cars or performing an ISO 9000 audit. Games are meant to entertain us and since that involves our personal tastes and preferences, it's impossible to assume that everyone would see things the same way.
The problem is that we're assuming it has to be one or the other. A review is neither exclusively objective OR subjective. A review is actually a subjective interpretation of a game's value, when supported by an objective view of the elements within the game.
There is an objective, often technical reality to every game -- combat balance, graphics and physics engines, network code, etc. but there's also a substantial subjective side. Are the raw materials, the objective reality of the game, arranged in a way that's interesting and engaging? As soon as you ask that question, you've brought your personal point of view into things.
A good reviewer corrects for his or her own biases, but the reader also has a responsibility to determine where his or her own opinion differs from the reviewer's. Let's take an example: The strategy game Hearts of Iron has numerous small details that create many options. That's an objective statement, but by itself it means very little. Now, I think the depth adds to the game, but other gamers find it tedious and unsatisfying. There's no way for me to present a clear reason why the depth adds to the game without venturing into the territory of opinion.
The trick is to keep the opinion grounded in the objective facts of the game. "The depth is enjoyable because one small decision can have long-lasting, far-reaching effects." Or "...because it makes you feel like you're leading a real country." Or "...because you can adapt the game to your own play style." But if what comes after the "because" isn't particularly compelling for you personally, well, you now have a clearer context for the review.
The problem is that we're assuming it has to be one or the other. A review is neither exclusively objective OR subjective. A review is actually a subjective interpretation of a game's value, when supported by an objective view of the elements within the game.
There is an objective, often technical reality to every game -- combat balance, graphics and physics engines, network code, etc. but there's also a substantial subjective side. Are the raw materials, the objective reality of the game, arranged in a way that's interesting and engaging? As soon as you ask that question, you've brought your personal point of view into things.
A good reviewer corrects for his or her own biases, but the reader also has a responsibility to determine where his or her own opinion differs from the reviewer's. Let's take an example: The strategy game Hearts of Iron has numerous small details that create many options. That's an objective statement, but by itself it means very little. Now, I think the depth adds to the game, but other gamers find it tedious and unsatisfying. There's no way for me to present a clear reason why the depth adds to the game without venturing into the territory of opinion.
The trick is to keep the opinion grounded in the objective facts of the game. "The depth is enjoyable because one small decision can have long-lasting, far-reaching effects." Or "...because it makes you feel like you're leading a real country." Or "...because you can adapt the game to your own play style." But if what comes after the "because" isn't particularly compelling for you personally, well, you now have a clearer context for the review.