Kind of the entire purpose of a critic is having an opinion. If people watch his reviews so they can get an idea of a product, that's people putting value to his opinions.
Yeah, he is one of those reviewers that, in my opinion, makes it clear that the review is from his point of view and not an objective point of view. That said he takes a pretty reasonable standpoint and like most of his reviews, even if yes some of it is forced, in the end he still helps me decide on games that I am undecided on (I also use a few other reviewers)
Isn't an "objective" point of view impossible in this regard? This isn't a science, it's entertainment.
Even if Totalbiscuit's opinion is more intellectual or less biased, doesn't make his or anyone else's any more or less objective than Joe's.
For example, I could say Ride to Hell is the unrecognized art of our time, for it's deep story and unique voice acting style. But considering the other billion people would obviously disagree, I could easily say I'm the one with the objective viewpoint.
Anyway, point being, objectiveness can't really apply to entertainment at all. Just opinion and presentation.
I see what you mean, but I feel like there is a level of objectivity that can be achieved. Like a truly subjective review could be "I don't like that game because I didn't find it fun," but an objective review could say "personally I did not find the game fun, but it did offer new content and as a sequel it certainly grew and developed the core mechanics of the game further to create a more cohesive and immersive story." Also objective doesn't mean you can't say something isn't objectively bad. Voice acting could be objectively bad, meaning it is just genuinely of poor quality (such as clearly poor voice recordings or the acting is clearly deplorable).
I would in fact say that Totalbiscuits review is a bit more objective, but I really don't feel like debating this stuff right now.