I think I made pretty clear that from my point of view personal opinion in reviews should be limited to an absolute minimum... it should be pretty obvious that this includes my own opinion as well.
And that is the crux of the disagreement. You feel that games are like, say, coffee grinders -- appliances designed to fulfill a specific, well-defined function. Something like that can be reviewed objectively: you can measure the uniformity of the grind, the range of adjustment, the noise, the power consumption, the durability, the capacity, the speed, and then compare it against other coffee grinders on the market, taking into consideration the price. Even so, if you comment on the design and ergonomics, you will enter into subjective territory -- unless you have the luxury of doing a proper, scientific usability test with a statistically significant number of test users.
I, however, feel that games are more like books or movies than coffee grinders. And whatever you may say, there is no way to write an objective critique of a book that isn't so trivial as to be comical. The only things you can objectively judge are the externals -- the quality of the binding, printing, and paper, the number of typos and other technical hitches, the number of pages, the size of the print, and so on. You cannot objectively measure how enjoyable, readable, exciting, moving, informative, or edifying it is.
What you can -- and, in my very strongly-held opinion, should -- do is describe your subjective experience of the book,
and explain why you experienced it that way, compared to the other books, comics, movies, and plays that serve as its background. That is not objective; it is overtly subjective.
However, and this IMO is the alpha and the omega of it, it is also (1) honest, and (2) provides enough information about your preferences and background that your reader can make their own, informed judgment about what to make of your review, and by extension, of the book being reviewed.
When you ask for an "objective" game review, you're effectively asking that we excise everything that *requires* subjective judgment to assess, and restrict ourselves to those aspects of the game that can be measured in anything approaching "objective" terms: load times, bug counts, typos, instances of jumpy dialog, instances of reused character models, and what not. In other words, to excise *what the game is about.*
Luckily for you, this is (more or less) what mainstream game reviewers do -- and they do it very well (some of them at least). That, ISS, is why I wanted to do something different: to write about everything that gets sacrificed on the altar of "objectivity" in games journalism.
But discussion can't flourish if people don't speak the truth, and universal agreement is boring as hell. I've always enjoyed the debate and even the acrimony that sometimes comes up because of the conflict in people's perspectives. It's a lot more interesting and in the end it's a large part of what brings people to forums; to explore ideas and maybe even learn something from someone else's POV. 
