Minus Fable I, because the mechanics still work the same way. The flavor is changed, but the core mechanics of the magic and combat in Fable II and Fable III are the same.
Seems like you subscribe to Rand, in which case there would be no use in debating reviews. I am still curious as to what you think are the objective values by which you think video games should be judged.
Rand was cool. Breath of Fire II, right? Yes, I know. Poor joke.
But yes. Simply, reviews are a pursuit of intellectualism, and I don't give a flying **** about how a game or a movie or a book or a comic makes someone feel, because that's not what it's all about. Because that doesn't contribute a single thing. At all.
Objective criteria of video games, a list by an admittedly hard-pressed El Bastardo, being that I am not a reviewer of video games, nor would I likely be one, also because I'm more interested in playing right now and am thus hurrying this along:
- Assuming a game in which narrative occurs and belongs (to be honest, a majority of games in today's market), typical narrative guidelines and factors of assessment work: is the narrative deep or glossed-over? Is the narrative cohesive? Does it make sense? Is it fleshed out? Etc., etc., etc.
- Characterization, as applicable, and see above.
- Graphics, as applicable, and per purpose - that is to say, does the game attempt to push graphic benchmarks? Some games use graphics as its entire point of being. Other games use graphics because it's a graphical medium. This can be open to discussion, and there are different schools of thought. Do all games require perfect, next-gen graphics? Or do perfect, next-gen graphics not matter as much in games not intending to set a new precedent?
- Mechanics: Does the game "work?" Is the game broken in any way? Are points far too hard or far too easy without reason or explanation? This classification could probably go more broad, so as to encompass all of, say, "Difficulty," or what have you. But that risk becoming too vague, when it's already rather vague. Note, I wouldn't consider glitches to be here. They are mechanics gone awry, in some cases, but this should be consideration of the game's mechanics working as intended.
- Replay Value: To be considered and documented.
- Quality Assurance: Though this more accurately rates the developer's QA team, a game that is released full of bugs and glitches, as is becoming more and more par for the course, should be held accordingly.
And whatever else. I don't know. Look at a Game Informer review. Most of them are horribly-written and -considered, but they usually have intelligent criteria categories.
None of these categories lend themselves to the subjective unless the reviewer is being lazy, or else cannot separate the objective from the subjective.
I used that to start buying the big businesses, though, and I've had more gold than I know what to do with since. I just went back and reset the rents on all of the houses I own to normal because I don't need the money at all and I kind of want people to stop hating me. 
