Honestly, the multiplayer alone warrants an incredibly high score. The campaign, however, is near unbearable. It has one of the worst single player modes I've ever forced myself through. I kind of wish they had just left it out and included more multiplayer maps.
But the argument that reviews are broken is completely legitimate. For example, the same reviews that bashed Metroid: Other M for it's voice acting and story gave Halo a pass by either saying the campaign wasn't really important, or even worse yet, that it was SO GOOD and made you sympathize and care about the characters (it does NOT). Having been through it, I can now most certainly say Halo Reach is FAR worse in almost every regard (single player). It's hokey, corny, contrived, and generic. It's a bad Michael Bay B-rate action movie. I've criticized Metroid Other M quite a bit, but the fact that Halo Reach gets a pass is ridiculous. Is it all in the hype? Possibly. One thing I've started to realize lately though, is that reviews are:
1. For sale (advertising etc)
2. A way to promote one's love of a certain console
On multiplayer alone though, I truly believe that Reach unquestionably deserves high praise. I guess the question is, what SHOULD A REVIEW BE? Does it have to include every facet of the gameplay possibilities? Do even the menu screens count? Should excessive load screens drop the score even though it doesn't affect the game itself? I personally believe each game is different and requires it's own criteria. So READ the reviews, be familiar with the reviewers track record, and don't by into hype. It's really easy to tell when a game suffers from it's own popularity. You just have to pay attention.