I like to see reviews from all angles. If it is a game I am a huge fan of I WANT a huge fan to review it, it will be the most accurate review for me. I want to read someones impressions who match my tastes. Do I want to see Jeff G review a Zelda game, hell no, give me the biggest Zelda fan out there, I want to know how it stacks up to other Zeldas. Then there is the mess that happened with RE6, reviewers who want everything one way, who refuse to explore a new combat system and just get frustrated at the most basic of things. For someone else those reviews maybe accurate but not for me.
For any review you don't really need to apply more requirements than these:
1. They can write.*
2. They have the ability to understand, and attempt to engage with the style and intentions of a particular game, regardless of their personal taste.
3. They have the ability to apply context sensitivity to their praise and criticism, regardless of their personal taste.
2 and 3 apply specifically to the scenario that you propose: 2 because it means that the review can be relevant to fans of the series, even if the reviewer is not a fan of the series. 3 because it means that the review can be relevant to those who are not fans of the series, even if the reviewer is.
*Let's be honest, just make it 1 and be done with it. 
Fucking reviews. I see where you're coming from but for i'm pretty sure Kevin is on the level with his stuff. If AC3 has you running around and throwing pigshit at people for 20 hrs he would tell it like it is. I find Caroyln is on the level there too, Mcshea also seems to be.
If you want a bunch of dumb cunts that throw 9's and 10's everywhere look no further than IGN.
(gamespot just gives everything 8.5 cause y'know... fucking integrity maaaan)
GodModeEnabled said:If you want a bunch of dumb cunts that throw 9's and 10's everywhere look no further than IGN.
You don't even have to go that far!
That's the last time I help YOU kill a super skag, bitch!
I read reviews, good or bad, to see what's opinion and what's broken either gameplay wise or glitch-wise... then I check the sites that AVERAGE scores, then I make my purchasing decisions from there. If a game is technically sound, but varies on OPINION, I'll usually give it a try, despite a number of bad reviews.
I guess to answer the topic's question, I don't go by any ONE reviewer, I go by ALL of them combined and take it from there.
I didn't mean theres anything wrong with 9 or 10's just seeing them all the time is fishy smelling, like my underwear after wearing the same pair all week.
At professional outlets should Editorial Director's select reviewers who are fans of a franchise to review the game?
I'd prefer that they select enthusiasts of the genre, but not fans of a particular game.
Case in point is Kevin Van Ord at gamespot. I quite like Kevin's personality, as he projects it online. I also like his writing a fair bit. He reviews the Assassin's Creed games for them and my problem with that is that he has the Assassin's Creed logo tattooed on his arm. He may just like the look of it, but for the sake of this discussion I am assuming he got it because he also loves the franchise.
That's just a bit too much buy-in for me to stomach in a reviewer.
I am not necessarily saying he would be too biased in a positive way toward the game, I mean the reverse might be true, his expectations may be too high resulting in a lower than average score as well. Either way, I'm saying a fan is just too close to the material to be truly objective.