My point was that reviews and criticism are not in the same category, so you agree with me. Thanks. And the difference between art and entertainment is only in the words themselves. Entertainment is an aspect of art (you might call it pleasantness in a painting), so yes, IGN and co are art reviewers.

I agree that reviews and criticism are not the same category, yes. However, you're acting like Feminism is just the academic version of talking about video games, when really that's not how it is.

Let's take this the same way. Sure, feminism isn't all of academic criticism. It is part of it, though, and feminists are quite likely to look at things through a feminist perspective. That's, like, their job. A Marxist will look at the economic aspects of a work. You've discovered academic disciplines! When it's your job to study and expose the ways that art works within an aspect of society, you tend do do that. When you're a reviewer, you review things.

Again, proving my point that these "lenses" aren't really about the art. They're about the lens itself. Feminists use art to try to prove feminism, Marxists use art to try to prove Marxism, and so on. I don't consider these people proper art critics, just because they're in academia. When you read a Marxist or Feminist critique of art, you're not really reading about that piece of art as an individual art object, you're reading about Marxism and Feminism.

When you see patriarchy, objectification, and misogyny in a work of art, that means you are doing the job of an art critic, or one of the jobs. Whether you're good at it is another story entirely. I already touched on this above.

Actually, when you talk about patriarchy and misogyny and so on, you're doing the job of a feminist ideologue. You can condemn art as morally evil (making you a critic in the more literal negative sense), but that doesn't make you an art critic (in the more positive sense of saying something interesting about art).

I found you a little exercise to complete to distinguish between a fact and an opinion. Have fun! That's from a college, so you know it's good. And sure, facts have their place in a review. Game crashes every two minutes? That's a fact. It would be better if it didn't? There's an opinion! You found them, but you confused one for the other. Whenever a reviewer states a preference one way or another, even on something as simple as framerates or load times, you've got opinion mixing with fact. Doesn't make it any less valid a review, though, and in fact, opinion is what makes it a review in the first place. Elsewise we'd just have a list of facts, and that's called a wikipedia article. You can see the difference between a review and a wikipedia article, can't you?

Great, I'm glad you have admitted that you're wrong. Now that we have established that reviews are at least somewhat objective, we can move on to make more subtle distinctions between subjective and objective. First, I'll ask you to do some elementary reading on aesthetics, since that's really the conversation we're about to dive into. I suggest checking out David Hume's On the Standard of Taste and Kant's Critique of Judgment. You'll be Kant, I'll be Hume.