Oh, of course. BIONICLE has often been looked down upon by the general System community. It's not that big a deal. They take issue with it and I'll just point out how it saved their System.
Nah. Granted, I'm not even sure that I could get it in the first place.
- I don't care about it at all. There is no use focusing on a negative topic.
Not a bad idea... At that point, I'd need to pass my Miru on to the next holder.
I don't often have burgers with pickles on it, however I certainly enjoy it when I do.
I do not know the words.
Kazuma, simply due to his reactionary nature. It's absolutely hilarious.
- I don't, but only because the only characters I know from it are from Konosuba. I wanna watch the other shows before I give it a shot.
- Honestly, I don't think I'd add anyone else.
This is a question that comes up time and again, and before I answer it I want to address one part of your post.
You are wrong about the intention of a review.
Here is a couple links to two definitions of the word "Review." Notice anything? You will not find mention of the word "objective" or "subjective." A review is meant to look over a subject or focal matter. So long as I am focusing on an item (say, a BIONICLE set) and evaluating it with whatever means, then it's a review. A lot of reviews now a days will give their opinions and that's fine. But a review isn't supposed to be one or the other.
As for why, there are a few reasons.
For starters, it became incredibly taxing to defend my positions on sets whenever I gave my thoughts on a legitimate issue with any given set. An early instance that sticks out was when I was attacked by someone in the comments for decrying the Toa Mata for their limited articulation and loose gear function. I was accosted because I didn't give them the benefit of the doubt for being older and that because they were from an earlier time, I shouldn't complain about their limitations. This was absolutely ridiculous. I don't care what time any set is from, if it has an issue, then it has an issue. So shortly after that I relented and opted instead for a general review based on community feedback which I remembered well enough to discuss the sets.
Secondly, I think it makes for a more rounded out review. I'm big on community thoughts and opinions and I liked to represent other view points that I didn't necessarily agree with. Red axles and blue pins? They don't bother me. Bohrok-Kal are rehashes? I like them. Stars were a poor end? I appreciate them so much I enjoy them. Gaps in sets make it look incomplete? I don't care. These are thing often cited as "cons" in a variety of videos, but none of that bothers me at all. If I didn't bring it up, someone in the comments would and call me out for failing to mention it.
For what it's worth, I prefer giving my opinion. It's more fun and there are some controversial opinions I feel people would be surprised by. What I don't like is people claiming that I'm just using the "objective" angle as a way to suggest my opinions on sets are the most reasonable or the most correct and that they're factual and others aren't. That's not true and I have never claimed that. If anyone thinks I used Recaps or any other objective reviews to give my opinion, all I ask is that you inquire with me about any specific instance. Just ask me what I think.
Hopefully that answers your question.