Just like how a food critic should generally like all of the different kinds of foods that they critique, it's my stance that a game critic should generally enjoy the kinds of games that they review.

Similarly, if I'm interested in RPGs and I'm reading a review of an RPG from a major publication, I expect that review to be from the perspective of somebody that would enjoy that RPG were it a good one, but criticize it if it were bad.

This one I find interesting as RPGs are an genre in that what makes one good will rarely be agreed upon. Some of the tropes associated with them people will lap up and others will stay away from entirely. This is particularly visible with JRPGs where a fan that enjoys them will go review one based almost entirely on how good the battle system, characters and story are and will happily ignore if the game is grindfest with no respect for the player's time of or if the visuals look like they're years out of date.

There is almost this sense of games that stick close to the status quo are less likely to offend anyone and thus more likely to be higher rated. For example most of today's single player FPSes you are very unlikely to get lost during the campaign, where to go next is either obvious or pointed out to you which is a big change from early shooters where getting stuck walking in circles wasn't uncommon.

Which all ties up into my main point, the level of depth most game reviews go into. Whilst nothing you are saying is untrue it isn't representative of how most games reviews are actually written. Playing too many or too few games of a certain type shouldn't adversely impact a reviewer, but it time and time again does. When most game reviews only go as far as how much fun they had with little dissection of why they had that particular amount of fun, I doubt the level of self-reflection we are talking about here is really common.