There is always a possibility that reviewers would sound biased towards others due to conflicting interests and ideologies by writing subjectively. Writing about the obvious, heard it before, aspects of a game makes the review become tedious which makes the reader lose interest, hence having no effect on them.
I like the whole concept that New Games Journalism is about the gamer deconstructing the segments of the game and engaging with it to focus on what is important in them in their point of view. The gamer notices and digs deeper into the game so they can relate to the aspects of the game that interests them. They are experiencing the game in their head, not in real life as the situation in the game does not exist; it is a digital world that provides entertainment in the mind of gamers. NGJ allows journalists to write effectively about in-depth meaning and interest of the game, breaking it down to minute details and not just stating the obvious aspects of the game such as the graphics and aesthetic value.
Having an objective ranking system for games is not necessary for sales as gamers are likely to stand by their subjective views when purchasing a game. Besides, how can an objective ranking system work when the “facts” could be misleading due to subjective opinion? For example, one person may state that a game has faster game play. Fair enough. But another person can disagree because they have experienced games that have had an even faster game play than the game being reviewed.
As for my own writing, I try to value objectively and subjectively equally in all fairness so I review the world more reasonably with some opinion and belief rather than taking a side and failing to notice some important things in the way things actually are.