Should a critic be "objective"?

[outlawauron]

Wright said:

outlawauron said:
Critics should due everything they can to give an objective criticism of whatever they're reviewing or criticizing. For a gaming example, criticizing a puzzle game for not having an open world isn't a valid criticism. That's the critic's bias stating what they wanted rather than an proper evaluation of the product.

But what would be a "proper" evaluation in that case? The fact that the game has puzzles? What if the critic find them too hard? Saying that would be objective, or subjective? Would his lack of skill with puzzle-based games (assuming no other critic is around) void his review completely? How could he measure the fun factor in this case without his personal bias? Is a personal bias something that should be reflected in the review, or not?

I would consider evaluating the complexity, variety, and pacing as things that are objective. Does it introduce new things as you play (ala The Witness as the game builds on itself to not throw complex things at you at once)? Do they offer a variety of puzzles to solve? A reviewers lack of skill with the game would hopefully disqualify them from being the sole reviewer, but otherwise their poor ability really wouldn't have an affect on the review outside of stating they were hard for a novice player of the genre. I don't think you can call a lack of skill a bias. (If the person hated puzzle games or found them boring, then that would be a bias that is obvious hard to overcome)