Well, been arguing it in the other thread, might as well post the general idea here.
A review is something for the audience, in particular, the consumer seeking information about the product in hopes of being informed about if they want to buy it or not. If that interest wasn't there and if that motivation wasn't there, reviews wouldn't exist at all (then it would just be artistic critique).
Now because a review's purpose and intent it based on the consumer, they shouldn't end up as platforms for personal politics. This is because not everyone shares those politics and as such attempting to make the review about those politics does a disservice to everyone who doesn't share them. It is taking what should be something for the audience and instead making it about the reviewer. Or to put it another way, it is someone who's task and duty it is to give relevant information to the audience instead using the opportunity to take advantage of the people who came to listen for that in order to soapbox. Imagine asking your friend about if a car is worth buying and they start ranting about foreign versus domestic car politics and you have a general feel for why many people dislike that crap.
Now, because of this, people often say they want more objective reviews. After all, if it is objective, you don't have to put up with that trojan horse political preaching crap from the people you expect actual product reviews from (as you already know you can go to blogs and professional critique for that where that is the actual purpose of those places.) The problem is that isn't quite the right word. Yes, a review should certainly seek to be objective where it can. There are ways to help that, such as comparison between similar products in order to establish benchmarks that people may find relevant ("The graphics look better then the previous game", "The controls are tighter and more responsive then that other game"), as while even if still a subjective opinion, it is applying that opinion in a more controlled and relevant to the audience way. They also tend to review with mention to core components that define a game or that are critical for a game (graphics, story, game mechanics, controls, sound, etc). While, yet again, these are subjective opinions, they are done in a more controlled way so as to inform the public about the product rather than use the platform as a soapbox. Hell, one can even mention aspects of the game that are political or controversial just fine as that is useful inform for the audience to know when making a purchase and having mentions like "you probably wont like this game if you dislike gore" is relevant to customers same as "you probably wont like this game if you dislike grinding".
The problem is that while people say "objective" most tend to mean "unbiased". Many people want a more unbiased review (seeing objectivity as a means to obtain it) and don't want to listen to a personal political ideological purity test applied to the product. But I suppose trying to argue against unbiased reviews would be very silly. Or might result in the exact same reply, who knows.
