That's a methodology that's flawed at conception. One's job as a reviewer is not to be magnanimous, that is, the job isn't to craft a review which appeals to the highest number of people. Doing so would be dishonest - you'd only be grasping at what you guess others might enjoy, rather than speaking with conviction. It's also a disservice to oneself - it implies that one's opinions are inherently invalid if they're not shared by the majority. Clearly that's not true.
The job is to provide an honest (and, hopefully, interesting) account of one's reaction to the game. Your review of Skyrim, as a person who hates it, could potentially be both interesting and useful, even to people who enjoy it like me. If you're honest about your impression, and your opinions are well considered, then what's the harm? You shouldn't be concerned about fragile egos that can't accept your differing take.
