I agree with the dog
most of these repixelling are just easy crashgrabs like those star wars movies with some extra unneeded effects in it
surely deserve a rebuy...

all you need is the ip some old codes and a few interns , no need to create anything new especially no new creative part
still you can sell it as a new game for a new games price , but it is nor a new game nor it deserves such a high price

yeah if they want a sequel and they make it different like dawn of war 3 they should deserve every crap they get from the original fans

imho the worst part is how they keep the errors of the old games in and call it that's how it was in the original so dont touch it the original is perfect the way it was , while they cut out parts as current ideology is afraid of women asses

every review should be about your current experience about the game in its current form and not some imaginary possibilty of what it wont become anyway in the future
oh right it has great potential ... a free space on my ssd has great potential too

We are human beings not robots, everything is emotional including whether we enjoy it or not. You can't really expect game reviews to be coldly mechanical. People can have all sorts of reasons for disliking a game and yes frustration that the developers chaned the genre/gameplay style of the series absolutely is a valid reason. Should that frustration be all the review is? Ideally no. Do you think Steam reviewers should not be allowed to post negative reviews because the game has DRM like Denuvo, even though negative reviews are like the only real way for them to protest DRM?

heh? only for kids everything is emotional as they haven't learned to control it yet
this is why they cant tolerate different opinions and spam the dvoter button

a good review needs most of it to be objective
you can mention what you didnt like without why ,but that wont really help the readers as they wont know you enough to judge they will like it or not

I agree with OP. Reviews should be objective and nostalgia shouldn't influence its rating because it becomes more of an opinion based on emotion rather than empirical data. However, it's still helpful to know how those games compare to its predecessors, the original if it's a remaster or remake, and its original predecessor.

Though, I suspect OP is specifically referring to reviews whose entire premise is more focused on the related games than the actual game itself that influenced their rating on the game. Many of the reviews on games like Yooka-Laylee can't go without mentioning Banjo-Kazooie and it's difficult to know whether it's biased or not.

Never mind.

it does
every employee should care who they are working for

You can try and review games based entirely on their status as computer software but it'll only get you so far, eventually you'll have to go into the realm of emotion and opinion. Take Pathologic, I can recognize it as a good game technically but I would never play it a second time as I found it thoroughly uncomfortable to play, not because of the gameplay mind you.

Of course, emotions and opinions are inherent to reviews. I don't read anyone here advocating for one of the extremes (all feeling <> only cold hard facts).
A good review gets the balance right. I've never written an official review myself, because I consider myself not good enough of a writer. Also, I prefer dialogue to monologue (that's why I sometimes write my views on this forum).

Academia is able to make objective progress in expanding human knowledge in various subjects without emotion or making things personal in journal articles. Why can't the same be done for simply reviewing video games? Reviews can be standardized to limit score variability using industry or peer-reviewed criteria, though I guess it'd make reviews a lot less entertaining to consume. As a cautious consumer, I usually read multiple critic reviews and verified owner ratings so I always have an accurate idea of what I'm getting myself into.

Because computer games are not a hard science, in general. Really, is this news to you?

Yes, I understand video games are media with technical aspects and subjective artistry. But like figure skating, judges are able to assign scores on standardized criteria to judge the performances of the athletes fairly.

I'm afraid this isn't a trivial idea; reviews can be a science if people want it to. If there are multiple methodologies to reviewing a game based on different weights to the games (e.g., story-heavy rating, technical rating, [genre] rating, etc.), that's absolutely fine too. The aim is for standardizing how games are scored to give people an accurate idea of what experiences the game will give. Emotions can play a small part (again mentioned through variances in criterion of the criteria), but it should not be a major deciding factor.

And thus trying to standardize 'experiences'... How's your Borg collective working out?

I'm sorry, but you're being totally ridiculous. Other than the technical side of things, there is no way to "objectively" judge most aspects of a game. Not just obious ones like art design or music or intangible charm but even something like combat. Some people hate how Witcher 1 did combat, I love it. There is no standarized, objective way to judge this. It's personal preference.

Many games that I consider truly great, golden miracles of gaming like Ghost of Tail, Bastion, Apotheon... how would anyone judge games that rely so heavily on the intangible way mood, gameplay, story, art and music intertwine? How could some "standarized" review devoid of actual human experience tell me what experience the game will give me? It's absurd. The best way to know is to find a review from a person who, through their subjective review of their subjective experience, indicate a taste, perspective and approach similiar to mine.

Also, those reviews can change (personal interpretation) throughout time, for you. As you get to know yourself and your personal taste better, have more experience playing games, ...