"Seems" - it's not explicit, but the implication is that objectively saying a randomised game is bad when it's only been bad from a subjective perspective isn't the best approach.
It'd be really strange for any publication to claim their reviews are "objective" (there's objectivegamereviews.com, but it is intended as humor). The usual view is something along the lines of a review being just an indication of one person's experience with a game at a specific time. And as far as I can see, the latter is the case here as well.
Neither page you link to contains the word "objective". The only mention of the words "bad" is in the phrase "bad luck", in a sentence specifically talking about how other people might have a better experience and Rowan might have been just unlucky. There is a score, but to interpret that you'd look at the review guidelines for IGN. To quote: Under no circumstances are review scores influenced by anything other than _our own opinions_ on the quality of the product in question. (Emphasis mine).
Where did he say that? People seem to keep mistaking reviews for impossibly objective analyses of games.