Really? Most games score on average far less than they did 10+ years ago. The access given to "professional" reviewers is far more influential today. And many of these reviews are click bait nonsense. Example:

Dammit, they took the weird 25 point review of MGS5 down off metacritic. I mean, that's a good thing, but can't illustrate my point now. There are others though.

They exist for pretty much all the top rated games especially exclusives so it doesn't bother me. If anything it evens out some games scores that get too many 10/10 reviews when the games clearly aren't perfect.

Yeah, and let's not forget their 38/40 for Resident Evil 5, 40/40 for Nintendogs (!), 39/40 for FFXIII and a bunch of CoD games, and several others. I think they have a Pez dispenser with some seriously strong drugs in their offices...

don't think a 6/10 is a clickbait review, even for an otherwise excellent game.

That 4/10 for Uncharted 4 though definitely is one. And yeah there have been a few others.

Apples to oranges basically. All of them are different genres with Hyrule Warriors Legends even being on a completely different platform. Mobile, handheld and console/PC games aren't treated equally when it comes to reviews.

Jim Sterling is never serious on its reviews, he was like that in IGN and continues to be.  He always uses very conflicting criteria and sometimes reduce the score of any given game due to very simple things like a certain item or a certain piece of music he dislikes.

I´m not sure about his taste in videogames, but as a reviewer he´s one of the worst ever.

Reviewers actually are supposed to review a game based on its technical merits, not on their personal tastes. It´s ok if they don´t like a certain type of game, like all of us, but they need to make clear that their tastes don´t intervene in their technical analysis.

It´s a very different thing when a product is reviewed by its technical features rather than by subjective, personal tastes. So, very discrepant reviews may point to the incapacity of the reviewer to, at least, try to be unbiased

I hate them.

There as a recent movie called "Get Out" that had a 100% positive rating. The movie isn't perfect but it was fun and a bit of a crowd pleaser. Then, one guy gave it a scathing review. No big deal--except that pretty much everything he complained about didn't really happen in the movie. It's like he watched the trailer, watched the opening scene, and fell asleep. This particular movie reviewer is NOTORIOUS for hating good movies and liking shit movies. And yet, his review stands.

If I were a reviewer, I think I'd be above "I'm going to say something different for attention and money. I'm so clever!".

Seem all like fair criticisms to me. Everyone weights their own preferences differently. I mean I heard there are even people giving full scores to an action game that runs at 20 fps. Crazy right?

This. We shouldn't automatically accuse reviewers for being dishonest just because they're outliers. Games can have elements that the majority like or at least find acceptable but that a few have enough issues with that they affect their experience with the game and thus the final verdict. And vice versa.