I disagree strongly. Games are an interactive medium. Removing that interactivity changes everything. Seeing someone else solve puzzles doesn't give you a good idea about how you'd do with those puzzles the frustration of getting stuck on something idiotic or the satisfaction of solving something clever. Having to rely on someone else's choices doesn't give you a good idea of how invested you'd be in the game making choices yourself, of the actual emotional impact and immersive quality of the story. You'd have no idea of the true tention or lack thereof of action beats, of how exploring a world really feels like, of what alternate paths or personally poignant moments of just quietly taking in the environment you could experience, of how alive and tactile or fake and empty the world truly feels. To quote one of my fovourite cyberpunk movies, what you get from a let's play is "used emotions". I can't imagine watching someone else play The Witcher 3 would give me anything close to the kind of experience to fairly review it.

Yes, you can tell some things from it, to better judge whether you yourself are likely to like the game when deciding whether to buy the game, but that doesn't make you qualified to review the game. You really have nothing to say that the person reading the review can't tell for themselves.

Still, the one thing this disagreement illustrates well is that noone should decide for others what reviews they should have access to.

An audio book is the actuall book (with some caveats, reasons for which I'm not fond of audiobooks, but there's no point in getting into that here), not a description of the plot and someone else's impressions of it. The point I was trying to make is that you're relying on someone else's experience of the game, not your own.