Art critics are some of the most critical folks out there, so I'm not sure that's a direction you want to go. For all the talk of games as art people sure don't want games criticized like art.
No one who reviews games dislikes games, but that doesn't make it less of a job. A person reviewing a game is playing it on a deadline typically and isn't playing it like other people, what might not bother you over a couple of hours might bother a person whose playing it all day to get it done.
There's also bias against a series that someone might not enjoy and bias for games within a genre. I love the Yakuza games, and know they're my thing. But they're a niche so if I review it I also try to be clear about the problems within the game as well since that niche isn't going to be for everyone. I'm also not the most objective source and I like reading the reviews from people who aren't fans of the series just to see what someone else makes of it.
Sometimes the person who doesn't like JRPGs is the best person to review one because they're not going in with pre-conceived notions of things that other fans might have come to accept, though they might not be able to speak to the historical differences in mechanical changes to the game. Sometimes the JRPG fan who loves that series is the best one because they can speak to that experience.
It's really good to get a wide range of opinions from people who are encountering it differently because everyone is going to go into the game with different experience backgrounds. There's no 'Only person meeting X criteria should review'. Because then a game like M&M Island Adventure rolls around and no one is a fan of pure manure so no one can warn people about it. There's no test for if a person should be allowed to have opinions on a game.
A game that relies on nostalgia is going to get a wide range of reviews. It will either feel dated, scratch that nostalgia itch, or remove the rose tinted glasses of those fond memories.
