I don't know if "objectivity" is the word, but I do think a review should just be more than "Did I like it or not?"
Of course, that should be part of it, but I think analysis should be a part of it too. What were the developers attempting to accomplish? To what extent did they accomplish it? I may not enjoy this for X reasons, but is it possible that a fan of this style of game could enjoy it, or is it just so poorly done that I don't think anyone could?
There's no such thing as an objective review. But I also think a reviewer should be able to think outside their own personal likes and dislikes to analyze the subject a bit. I don't think that's asking so much.
(Note that I'm not referring to Sterling's review here, even though I know that's part of what set this conversation off. I haven't read Sterling's review yet, so I can't speak on it.)
This is how I see it as well. It's not about being objective, but attempting to aim towards a sense of objectivity. A person's own bias and views will always have an influence on critique and that's okay, even preferable at times. But I still think it's possible to aim towards a degree of objectivity through a more analytical approach, then just completely letting one's own feelings and views completely influence their critique.
However, I see this as simply what I believe to be the preferable way to critique and not the so-called "right" way. Like, I think it's the best way, but critics should be allowed to articulate their opinions in whatever way they see fit. Just as consumers are allowed to choose what kind of critiques they find valuable and which critics they find trustworthy.