Well, we can separate this from the context of the Polygon review, but I'm still going to disagree with you for the same reasons (regarding the "soapbox" portion, at least).
If you can make the case for why reviews aren't opinions, I'm all ears.
The reason why reviews shouldn't be merely opinion pieces is because it's possible for a person to evaluate a product from a variety of angles and perspectives. We're not so stubborn in that we can only look at an object one way (or at least, not everyone is). Reviews shouldn't read out of an Op/Ed piece. They should be the real meat of a video game publication. Having multiple reviewers evaluate a game at the same time, while sharing, alleviates some of the stress of being objective and adds to the overall objectivity of a review (something that rarely happens nowadays, but used to happen all the time in game magazines).
A reviewer should have the ability to objectively see value in something that may not inherently click with them. I think that's the central requirement of a reviewer. If they can't do this, they're in the wrong profession. They'll still be influenced by their own experiences and preferences, but they can still understand why their readership might appreciate or dislike other aspects of it. I hate Skyrim, but I can still write a review about all of the positive things that it accomplishes... and while I fully recognize that the game isn't for me, I also recognize that the majority of my "readership" values things in this game differently.
This is how judges and juries are never wrong, good job proving your point though it's a terrible point of comparison given basing a verdict on evidence perceived as objective is an utterly different process to subjectively critiquing and giving their opinion a product.
Please point out to me a review you don't consider to be pointless, I'd love to be enlightened by the "limited objectivity" displayed in a persons opinion piece.
Yes, basing a verdict on evidence is an objective process, but I don't agree that it's that incomparable to a review. It's a bit of hyperbole, but I don't think that it weakens my point. When you write a review, you are judging something. The gravity and standards of the situation are different, but the basic premise remains true. Most reviews nowadays read like lavish advertisements, and I'm not surprised that it's difficult to find a review with limited objectivity. Like I said, there was a reviewer who openly admitted that they wrote their review as if trying to sell a game to a friend because they thought it was good. That's absurd.
I can't provide examples because I'm on a work computer, and most gaming sites are blocked, but I'd say that there were plenty of EGM reviews from long ago that held limited objectivity because the raw score aggregate was determined by 4 reviewers at the same time, who discussed the merits.
