There is no such thing as a perfect review. That's a subjective call about a subjective medium. Yes, a review should have as much objectivity as possible, in my opinion, but the entirety of the review is still going to be subjective.
That being said, I actually like the idea of the reviewer going in blind. The "hype" factor many people are throwing around, for example, is completely ridiculous. No game ever should get a lower score for being "hyped". Whenever I read someone cite "hype", my opinion of their opinion immediately drops several notches.
Unfortunately, a media blackout for reviews is simply not practical. That would mean that reviewers could not be writers or reporters on a regular basis, which would mean a much larger staff. I don't see that happening.
All we can really do, as consumers, is to qualify which reviewers we trust. We can isolate elements that we will and won't accept. We can compare reviews to see if something is off. We can contrast the opinions of a reviewer with our own regarding older games.
For example, I used to be a loyal follower of Destructoid and I remember reading Jim Sterling's reviews (KZ3 10/10, Deadly Promition 10/10, Kirby's Epic Yarn 9.5/10) and wondering what the hell this guy was smoking. When that happens, you just mentally cross that person off your "trusted" list and move on; on the other hand, someone else might agree with those scores and consider him the best reviewer ever.
It's about as an inaccurate science as you can get.
