Reviewers are especially good at it.
Some of them are, yes. Most avoid it but I'd say 10-20% of modern reviewers should not be reviewing games.
Fans are even better at it though.
"WHAT? THE GAME I"VE BEEN HATING ON BUT NOT PLAYED YET GOT AN 8/10? LOL ALL REVIEWERS AER CORUPT!!!1!1!"
"OMG THIS SITE JUST GAVE TEH GAME I BEEN BRAINWASHED INTO LOVING BUT NOT PLAYED YET A 6/10? ALL REVIEWERS ARE CUROPT!!!11!!1!"
I think there are a lot of examples of games where the critics don't really think much about the score they're giving, they decide based on the franchise and will always rate them the same. Mainline Pokémon game coming out, 86-88 time. Mid-generational Pokémon game coming out, 80-82 time. Rockstar game coming out, obviously it has to be a 10/10. Zelda, yeah 10/10. FIFA, how about 85 every year.
See, mostly everyone has widely different opinions on these games. Hardly anyone thinks the last 4 generations of Pokémon games are as good as each other, in fact hardly anyone likes them all. GTA IV is seen as a massive disappointment by just about everyone, but it's one of the highest rated games ever - and similarly, many people already think RDR2 is overrated. Zelda, many of them aren't too beloved, for example the DS games and Skyward Sword, but those were still rated 90+. FIFA is FIFA.
Critics always judge games based on the series. Every franchise has a defined metascore it "should" be getting, and hardly any critics veer away from that. The same is true for Fire Emblem.