A counterpoint to this is that if you let someone that doesn't like the genre, and thus really doesn't understand it or its appeal, then you certainly run the risk of putting out a review like that of IGN's infamous Football Manager review. A review that's so bad that IGN pulled it and apologized for it and it's often cited as one of the worst from any major outlet. But it's simply just a review from someone that doesn't like those types of games.
I think this is all rather dependent on what we expect reviews to be in the first place.
Typically we assume that a good review will be from someone who understands the fundamental appeal of a certain genre because it means they can (ideally) give more insightful or detailed feedback, because they know what works and what doesn't. After all, you typically wouldn't ask someone who doesn't know a whole lot about a given subject to weigh in.
That being said I do think there is some merit to the idea that it's worth it sometimes to get an alternative or outsider perspective, and that this can be interesting to read even if you are an enthusiast already. Sometimes things get very insular and you need a fresh pair of eyes. This does assume a couple of things though, like a genuine good faith effort from the person in question to try and understand the game on its own merits.
Which, bringing it back to dunkey, I'm not sure what people were expecting from him? I mean in general terms it's not great to get ''too'' hung up on what any "internet personality" thinks about what games you like or dislike, but for dunkey it just seems especially weird because while he does try to be serious or make legitimate points sometimes, that's mostly not what his videos are about. He has a very particular character and shtick. He's someone you watch to see the funny, not because you want an insightful and detailed review. That doesn't mean he can't be criticized of course, but I don't see the point in getting too hung up on it.
