Split-screen.com: "In terms of reviewing styles, I've observed that most reviewers when faced with the prospect of writing a glowing review often regress into waxing eloquent on it. Straight forward objectivity suffers a lot when it can't be distinguished from prejudiced liking (or even hating) of a product. Some reviewers find one aspect of a game to be so great as to completely conceal any shortcomings it may have. Others may not find the initial game compelling enough and seek to mask their lack of enthusiasm (or showcase their immense dislike) by pinpointing flaws. This may sound like gibberish but it becomes an important issue when faced with questions like why Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare wasn't criticized for it's lack of co-op play while Killzone 2 was.
"There's no denying the need for professional reviews. We need people who have been around long enough to elaborate on the genuine merits of a game, while identifying the flaws the interfere in gameplay. It may seem 'cold' or 'heartless' to degenerate game reviewing into a completely objective art of analysis. But when going the other way has produced such controversial results, it's definitely worth a shot."