Right here, you're describing a quality of the game that annoys you.
No. I described it's style. Quality and style are entirely different factors.
Your tastes in games are always going to be relevant, always. It's impossible for any reviewer to approach a game with zero preconceptions unless you have them live in a closet. In any case, the Polygon review did not label the game as "objectively bad", they described the parts that they enjoyed and the parts that they did not, and were clear about why they felt that way.
They marked it with an objectively low score, which undervalues its objectives qualities by a lot, misleading readers in believing that it's worse than it actually is.
That review can easily be summarized with "The game is very good, but I'll tell you it isn't, because tits".
There's a difference between approaching a game with zero preconceptions and being able to put those preconceptions aside as much as possible in order to appreciate a game's objective qualities.
[QUITE]So if you had a miserable time playing a Mario game, I'd like to know about it and
why. After all, I find myself more and more on the fence about buying Mario games and it might be helpful to read a review from someone who shares my reservations. If anyone wanted a sterile, objective overview of the game's content then they can just watch youtube videos without the commentary.[/QUOTE]
personal-taste reservations can be voiced without affecting the score and with a very clear notion that such reservation come indeed from personal taste, when those reservations are entirely personal and have nothing to do with the game's quality.
Polygon's reviewer turned the review into a political speech, and that's simply really bad.
