In light of the rcent review issued by Wall Street Journal by Mike Thomsen, which rated Uncharted 4/10 after otherwise unanimous praise and acclaim.... 

I would like to ask whether we need some type of oversight or rating system to attribute to the quality of reviews? Perhaps a blacklist or list of shame?

As we all know I am firmly in the Playstation corner but this is an issue affecting all gamers; Forza Horion 2 and Halo 5 received 2/10 each from the same reviewer and Mario Maker received a 5/10 from the reviewer of Uncharted 4 mentioned above. 

I think this is a far more important issue than many realise as there are many who still go to Metacritic to inform their purchasing decisions.....the meta could also be artificially dropped by a troll review resulting in bonuses being lost for an entire team. If the review is a fair reflaction of the game, I would not have issue with this but in the case of inconsistent reviews or those looking for easy clicks.... I feel it is outrageous. 

As reviewers serve the purpose of informing purchases, I feel a degree of accountability and transparency needs to be brought to the table. 

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but rating Uncharted 4, a 4 out of 10 is as retarded as reviewing The Godfather movie a 4 out of 10.

A game with a low score like that, is simply a game that technically doesn't work. Which isn't the case with U4.

So because he gave it a 4 it somehow means his opion/tastes are invalid and shit?, because that's generally what I'm getting from folk who lose their minds over the few people who aren't on board the hype train these days.

We're entitled to our opinion and that's generally all there is to it, not we're entitled but when you score it lower you're some mentally challenged retard.

Yes.

There is a BIG difference between the people that complains about a 9, and this specific situation.

As a "professional" game reviewer, there is absolutely NO possible way that a game like Uncharted 4 could score a 4 out of 10.

In what aspects is he basing his score?

How do you rate a game? Presentation, Sound, Graphics, Replayability, etc.

How in the fucking hell he ended up with a 4 out of 10? You tell me. 

There are parameters that every reviewer has to follow, he obviously followed none.

I think it's more in the reasoning of his rdview. He literally complained about the graphics being too detailed.

There are some serious problems with video game journalism. Publishers using strong arm tactics to get good press; journalists accepting gifts and favors; rushed reviews; amateur critics; and unreasonable demand from fans. To fix this we need to change our unfair expectations as consumers and we need to insist on journalists with proper credentials working for publications/sites that won't bend to unethical demands from publishers.

The problem isn't a lowball review for Uncharted 4. I'm sure some high scores were unduly influenced by advertising dollars and reader expectations. We can't just get mad when our favorite publisher gets a negative review. That kind of parochialism is what allows this broken system to endure. We need to expect better, from ourselves and from the media.

But then who would oversee the one that oversee the reviewers?

This is not a problem of the lack of someone or something that regulates reviewers.After all, reviews are simply opinions, and people have the right to have either a bad or good impression out of something and express about it.What we really need is more professionalism.

I didnt read that review in particular, because people warned me about it having massive spoilers about the game, so I stayed away from it, but it would not be the first review to do so(make a bad review for the clicks).What really needs to improve is the professional integrity of those reviewers, and one way that I see that principle could be reinforced is the temporary ban from metacritic for example.Lets say that metacritic hires people to read reviews published in their website.If they find that some sites keeps doing bad reviews(as in the reviewer is not doing an informed review and/or see that they have some beef against the game/developer), they should remove them from putting their reviews in metacritic in the future.That way they could reinforce people doing honest reviews, without taking their freedom of speech.

There are several people in the industry (Colin Moriarty for example) that simply dont believe in numbered reviews.

He pushes the idea of worded reviews, so you can conclude in your own way if after reading what the reviewer has to say about the game, you could like it or not.

But even him is well aware that most consumers just scroll down to the bottom of the page to see the number. 

Nobody reads the damn review.

Also, like the U4 situation with the 4 out of 10 review. You can be damn sure that the review managed to bring thousands upon thousands of clicks to the page, which generates them money, so they win at the end of the day.

It is a very complex situation.

You want oversight over people's opinions?

There is a faction of the industry that is tainted, i would support an independent oversight of some sort.

Specially for click bait reviews and sold out reviewers.

Reviews are a fundamental aspect of the industry, there has been cases with public evidence that certain developers have not been able to cash out an extra bonus in money, because they didnt manage to get a certain review score with their game.

Would it be fair that the hard work of some guys for years has to be fucked up because some fucking loser reviewed their game a 1 out of 10 just to bait a couple of clicks to his site?

It is not fair.