You are wrong. Red Dead Redemption is making an intentional political statement from political themes. You don't need to look at it "through a political lens." It is pretty overt, without being heavy-handed. Many western movies are political, as they intentionally explore themes like justice, social order, the nature of right vs wrong, personal duty, personal responsibility, the power of the state etc. If you think those movies didn't (and still don't) intentionally explore social ideas and morality, you're kidding yourself.
The fact that some of these things may be "tropes" doesn't mean they're not political anymore. That's kind of like saying that ww2 films made during and shortly after the war weren't propaganda because they all explored the same themes.
And not everything is political. Geometry Wars is not a political game. You'd be hard pressed to make that argument. Candles are not political. Balloons are not political. Eating carrots is not political. As for violence, it is almost always political. Mortal Kombat X is a political statement, whether the people that make it choose to express it as political. Violence, especially extreme violence and gore as entertainment is a political statement in itself. You're actively saying that it's harmless and that it's ok. That is undeniably political. I'm not choosing to use some weird definition of politics.
If someone reviews Mortal Kombat X and doesn't take issue with the gore, or maybe even acknowledge the gore, that's just as political as discussing it as an issue. That's pretty easy to understand. What I find is that people who don't want "politics" in reviews actually mean that they only want a certain brand of politics in their reviews.
On top of that, it's actually stupid to prevent people from being "preachy" in reviews. It's actually bad for the consumer. Ultimately what you need to know from a review is whether the person who reviewing the product, item, service liked it. If I baked a pie and asked a friend to try it and then asked, "What do you think?" and they responded, "It's blueberry, has a pie crust and is roughly twelve inches in diameter," I'd slap them across the face and tell them to try again.
The further you reduce a review to some kind of objectivity, the less useful it will be. If there was some formula for an objective review, all reviews would be the same, meaning there would be no use for having more than one review of any product. We all know that's stupid, because none of us like the same things. Ultimately, what you want to find is a group of reviewers with similar tastes to your own. You want to find someone that likes and dislikes the same things, or a group of people that cover the bases. I want to know if the same things offend them, excite them, make them laugh, make them cry, whatever. Those are the important things. The emotional responses. Is something fun. That's pretty basic. If I find a reviewer, that finds the same things enjoyable that I do, then I can probably count on their next recommendation. If they say they were thrilled by a game, that's a lot more useful to me than telling me the framerate, the resolution, what buttons do what, what sound formats the game supports etc. We play games to get an emotional response in ourselves, so why wouldn't I want to know the experience of the person reviewing? Fuck that fence sitting where they say, "This game could appeal to people who like x." No, tell me whether you liked it. Don't try to guess if someone else would like it. If I read your reviews, and I know my tastes are similar to yours, I can make the judgement that I will or will not like it as well.
But I will certainly do so for key releases, and will get back to them for key features. 
