It's impossible to release a completely objective review that is of any use to consumers at large. A completely objective write-up would constitute more of an effective synopsis - or a summary - of the game. The consumer would be better off buying the game himself/herself.
That being said, use too much subjectivity and you effectively decouple yourself from what should be the target audience. The review might come off as flaky or too harsh.
Finding a blend of the two is your best bet.

Only object part of the review is often technical. Such as there isn't any possible way to excuse 12fps is equal to 60fps, vice versa.

Outside of that, completely Objective review sounds like a perfect partisan politics.

The key to a good review is having the ability to see flaws in something that you personally love and having the ideals enough to put it in print/post it online.

You can't be objective reviewing entertainment, because what entertains me is different than what entertains you. Reviewers should embrace that and be upfront about it. It's why i usually see more merit on fan reviews on youtube rather than commercial reviews.

He should be free to display his preferences. But I guess only established critics get to do this and most on the lower end of the scale have to agreed with the consensus.

It's impossible. That's why we like some reviewers more than others. If objective was the goal we would only need one review. It's up to us to spot the bias and choose which ones we find credible.

Reviewers need to remain as objective as possible where they can be. Of course they need to give a subjective opinion but that should be an informed opinion which allows them to critically analyse and compare to other games/films/books.

Ideally, a review should be informative enough that even when a reviewer doesn't like what they're reviewing, the reader should be able identify if they would.

"But what those numbers mean to someone doesn't have the exact same weight for everyone.  That's why there's rubrics for sites/magazines.  

Can't say I really see the conflict there.  If the written text provides clarity as to what that 8/10 means between each game it seems fine to me.  

I guess the thing I'm trying to get at is foregoing scores shouldn't be considered the answer when such a prominent medium as film has gotten along fine with that for a long time.  I personally like the use scores and see them b/c it's essentially shorthand of a reviewer's thoughts then I get to dive into their text and see how they reached that conclusion."

Right, but scores do have an effect on video game sales, and there have been lots of games or gems that have been shafted either from poorly thought out reviews or game award snubs.  Films aren't as big of a deal for reviews. It's cheaper to purchase a ticket than a $60 game or most discounted games.  Renting isn't always viable for some people and I don't think many even consider renting games much anymore...not sure but I rarely hear or read about it.

Yes, to an extent. You need to be objective if you're stuck reviewing a genre you don't particularly like (Gamespot is notably horrible with this), OR if you're the guy in the office super hyped for a game you can't let that cloud your judgement (like GR did with Alien Isolation and many other games). BUT, you have to know when to be subjective and announce your subjectivity. The best reviewers make sure to note that "if you like X" you'll appreciate this game or what have you, and the worst (most of them) just talk as if they're being objective.

This issue is also why I try to do post-hype plays (in the case of TLoU I avoided everything like the plague for a full year to be fair and not get swept up in hype - needless to say people don't like my opinion of that game).