Should a critic be "objective"?

[LMU Uncle Alfred]

coolbeans said:

LMU Uncle Alfred said:
The simple solution is to do away with scores. Scores are objective indicators as real numbers so it's insulting to have review scores and then have a subjective view of a game right beside it.

While I agree with more sites moving towards non-numbered reviews, I take issue with the bolded part.  Scores are really subjective indictators because it relies on how a reviewers uses them to different goals.  Something like Quarter to Three can copy Netflix's Hate it/Love it template while another may use a x/100 score to a different effect.  

Scores are fine; it's their abuse by fanboys that's ruining them.  

I meant that scores  are absolute values, that they carry a perfect weight to them throughout the ages.

The same scores are also shared across so many genres and visions of games for each genre.  It doesn't really make any sense for instance to compare a subjective written review with the same score of one game with an 8 to another game's subjective review with an exact score of an 8; and regardless of whether or not they were reviewed by the same person or in the same genre.  You can only take each game one written word at a time.  

Also, our opinions of games change over time so it might actually be better to just do away with reviews altogether now that I think about it.

Focus on a renting system with no reviews or anything.  The only way to tell if you'd like a game is to view walkthroughs online.

I think people would be surprised at the games they would actually end up liking in this system.  Once assumptions are out of the way they will focus more on what they want as opposed to what somebody else tells them.  Some flaws in games they used to focus so intently on might become unnoticeable or trivial because they're being honest with themselves.