The problem is I agree with everything you said, but your comment *doesn't* show how an objective merit exists or why it's important. The reality is objectivity is just an idea used to say that you have enough de-tachment of something to look at it fairly, but that in and of itself being "objective" is not true, because there are also people who will come to a different conclusion than you despite being "fair". 

Your comment is great and I agree with it, but you don't really say anything that directly conflicts with what i'm saying other than you disagree and believe in objectivity. 

A case can be made that The Last Guardian is the best PS4 game. In fact, I expect Matthewmatosis to make a video likee that But that doesn't mean that there aren't problems with the game that can lead to an amazing review concluding the game is a mixed bag. Both reviews can be just as "fair" and have points that back up their claim just as much, yet they have different conclusions.

Video game reviews are not politics. Just having the best argument doesn't mean what you're saying will actually hold true for most people.

You could make the most compelling argument for why the QTEs in Resident Evil 6 actually aided the immersion and made that game a masterpiece, and the people reading could totally buy into it. But once they actually play the game and 90% of them realise the argument was total BS, they're probably not gonna feel like the review did them justice.

And I already made the point that perfect objectivity can never be achieved, but it is their job to be as close as possible. There are universal truths that most lifelong gamers can agree to e.g. 30fps is obviously worse than 60fps(not accounting for resolution and genre etc.); yet some publications/developers have even tried to make arguments against that, and some 'gamers' even bought into it.

Objectivity is not a myth, and even though perfect objectivity can never be reached (cause we haven't all had the same experience and history in gaming), it should still be the job of a reviewer to try and get as close as possible.

I don't even mind if they add personal sides notes into their reviews, as long as they make sure it's known that's only their opinion, or whether they feel it actually has an objective affect on the quality of the game. I don't expect them to be perfect, but I expect them to try. It is their job to be knowledgable on the subject.

Holding true for most people is not what the concept of objectivity is, though. Objectivity is popularized as a concept for holding games to a certain merit that can be seemingly qualified as factual. It's taking art(and before you say "games aren't art", i'm just substituting art for media) and trying to defuse it down to a quantifible science.

Which is ridiculous and obviously can't be done, because the perception of media in the first place requires a bias. We don't percieve media neutrally, we build a bias towards things based on preferences that become established, and over time we learn what we like and don't.

The entire problem with the objective merit is this : People's objective merit is created by a bias in and of itself. It's an opinion that you institute into your system as fact. You can't qualify an objective merit until you decide what standard games should be held up to, and that in and of itself is an opinion.

The example I highlighted is an appeal to popularity. I don't suppose you consider Justin Beiber to be worthy of praise? Your response to this will be "But anyone who knows anything about music will know that Justin Beiber sucks!" but that's just an appeal to authority. None of those appeals are inherently right.

I agree with you that objectivity isn't a myth. I've actually said so on this forum before, though I don't believe I said it in this thread(correct me if i'm wrong). Saying that isn't really meant to be literal. Concepts are concepts by themselves. The objective merit, which is supposed to be a qualifible way of judging art, is a myth in modern application.

I agree with the attitude that a reviewer should try to be as fair as possible. To be as objective as possible is a slippery slope but people seem to use those words as synonym, so I guess I can agree with that. If objectivity was real though and reviewers could all get as close to objectivity as possible, could you imagine how boring reviews would be? It would essentially be multiple reviewers saying the same thing.

Review scores are arbitrary models have have no specific set style. Humans cannot be trusted with complete objectivity but rather are expected to Be as professional as possible conveying their set and specific opinion on aspects of a game and come to a reasonable conclusion  that the eager consumer can find reasonable before purchase. Think of it as a well thought out suggestion. People only use  review scores as a guideline for critical reception. This goes double for aggregates.This helps them know if they have a high chance of gravitating to a game. Nintnedo seems to hit the mark of what makes a game a great in the genres they excel in. They also have mastered the understanding of fun factor which allows for replay value in even their single player games. Few companies ever accomplished this pedigree of development.

There was also the fact that 3 or 4 of his gripes with the game were legitimately proven to be not just wrong but also something he could have fixed himself through a simple button press to literally alleviate it. I've got my doubts that he even PLAYED the game!

Two 95+ (at least) metacritic games on it's first year.

Best first year for a console? ever?

I don't know for that but it's been a joyful ride.

If we set it by your standards (95+) we should regroup games by launch year and see if one year has more than 2 games on the same console with a 95+ score. And then see if it corresponds to a console's first year.

Not to rain on anyone's parade but a 95+ score is not guaranteed because one usually harsh critic has given the game a perfect score. It's a good sign for sure but let's not get carried away.

Wait, so is the parade still on or not?

Zelda got 97 though.......