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.

Numbers of possibilities and optiones. Clear and simple. A game with one possible action will be the most repititive. A game with endless possibilities and actions is the most varied. Of cource it is never as simple as that in games so subjectivity will always be a factor. So, how much this or that matters will alywas be subjective.

That's my take on it.

I don't like fighting games and find them boring but if you asked me objectively if Smash Bros. is good or not (for exemple) i will say yes even if they're games i don't really enjoy playing.

For genres i am familiar with however it might be a little harder because i have stronger opinions about what is good and what is not.

This is the so much the truth.  Almost all the "this review is awful" threads I see basically break down into "this review does not reflect my opinon of the game," which itself is ridiculous.  Why SHOULD someone else's opinion reflect your own?  The extreme overreation to the "too much water" review, for example, where people were losing their minds because someone somewhere didn't like the mechanics of particular segment of the game.  Big deal.  It's just one person's opinion and they are every bit as entitled to it as anyone else.

There's a confusion, here, as to the intent of the word "objective".

When people say they want an objective review or criticism, what they're saying is that they want the reviewer to provide information about the film in a form in which anyone can insert their own subjective viewpoint, rather than being given the reviewer's subjective viewpoint.

It's the difference between "the story involves a love triangle between John, Katie, and Patrick, but I didn't find it believable because it seemed to me as though Patrick really was more into John than Katie. The dialogue felt a little disjointed as characters seemed to respond in ways that felt like they were talking past each other rather than to each other. You might like this movie if you're into complicated romantic entanglements, but don't go in expecting the epitome of romantic drama." and "The love triangle wasn't believable. I think Patrick is gay based on how he seemed to react to the other characters, but he's meant to be straight. The actors didn't make the dialogue feel real. I say that this is a bad movie."

Notice the difference? In the former case, there is subjective opinion incorporated into the critique, but it's done in a way that leaves the reader with the ability to decide for themselves. The details are provided to make clear what the issues were, and an attempt is made to provide what is necessary for those who have different opinions to make their own mind up. In the latter case, even where detail is provided, it's provided in a form that doesn't permit alternative viewpoints. The former attempts to provide objective information, the latter revels in subjective opinion.

And that's what, I believe, most people mean when they say they want objective criticism - something that allows people to insert their own biases and subjective perspectives, rather than something that avoids any form of subjective opinion.

Another way to think of it is by analogy with colouring books. A completely objective review would be like an art book - blank pages. The kind of review that annoys a lot of people is pre-coloured, there's no room for alternatives. What people want is a book that has the outlines done, provides the structure, but then leaves it to the user to put their own colours into it. They want a review that provides that basic structure, that sense of what it's like, but then leaves it to the reader to imprint their own views.

A critic should be objective about objective things: frame rate stability, glitches, loading time, sound quality. A critic should be subjective about subjective things: art style, enjoyment/fun, genre preferences.

If I was a critic I would generally score FPS games lower than average because I don't like FPS. As long as people who read my reviews understood that I don't like FPS then they will be able to contextualise my review.

The problem is when people read a review and don;t understand the tastes and preferences of the reviewer.

I  have to pretty much agree with everything you said. A fully objective review can be cold and boring. At the same time a fully subjective review may not be useful because it may not be generalizable to other people (a good deal of people did not have any problems with the water in ORAS, so I would say that that IGN review tipped too much into the reviewer's own subjective thoughts). A good reviewer needs to strike a balance between objectivity and subjectivity.

Absolutely they should be. We'll never get to 100% objective reviews, because entertainment is not a science, and obviously preferences will come into play. However, reviewers should make every effort to remove as much bias as possible.

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.

It sounds like saying "Robert de Niro is a better actor than Van Damme" or "Van Damme has more credibility in a karate fight than Robert de Niro" makes no sense. I disagree. I also disagree with the meaning of "objective", which I'm using not in the philosophical sense, but in the sense of fairness and impartiality. That's a legit sense according to wikipedia.

But before you start arguing, let's think your way. Your own opinion on the subject is subjective, not objective, because you can't prove anything mathematically. I mean, even your opinion about objectivity is subjective. So all you can do is to expose a subjectivity that is in no way better than mine (not in a objective way, anyway). So, in this context, whatever you will write that you think is proof, argumentation, points taken, or clever, it will just be an other subjectivity, opposite to mine. So, don't think to hard while writing !

Last but not least, you are very wrong about Descarte, which is not said to be the basis of western science, but said to be the basis of western philosophy.