Should a critic be "objective"?

[The Fury]

Wright said:

I wouldn't have brought it up, but the discussion I had last night certainly inspired me to look for some insight in this matter here. I tried arguing that a critic's review is an embodiment of subjectivism in itself, but my friends would reply back saying that if it isn't objective, the writer shouldn't criticise in the first place.

It's the weirdest thing I've noticed here on gaming forums, some people expect reviews which are personal opinion to be objective. Obvjective reviews aren't reviews, they are game manuals. :P

Ostro said:

A real critic should be objective, yes. And at the same time tell you what can be done better (e.g. draw comparisons to similar things - that way you get away without statements like "this is too hard/easy/loud/green").
A subjective review is just an opinion. Sure, it can be well written and based on proper arguments but it remains an opinion that anybody has and you will have to like/identify with the author to get an idea of what they mean.
Everybody has an opinion and can spread "reviews" but it's not critical. People tend to forget that (both authors of "reviews" and their audience) and feel like they can change the world or personally attacked.
Just like the most famous games/music/movies/... don't equal the best, neither objectively nor (and definitely not) subjectively.

Yes, that is exactly what reviews are and therefore what critics should be. You cannot review something if you don't have an opinion on what you are reviewing.

See the Jim Sterling video.