Reviewing a game is difficult. For everybody that craps on reviewers, recognize there is a huge difference between reviewing something and simply stating an opinion. People like to say no reviewer is reliable, but have never tried to write a review themselves to see how people receive it. "BUT REVIEWERS ARE BIASED!" Of course! They're reviewing something. You're specifically looking at how their own views and opinions mingle with the game handed to them. It wouldn't be a review if it lacked bias.
"If they didn't like the game though, why did they take it to begin with?"
Either because they thought they would like the game, or they were literally the only person available to handle it at the time it needed to be done. I'd say those are the two biggest factors. I've reviewed a couple of games now I really did not like. Not one bit. But I had the misfortune of being the only one available to take care of the game, so it fell on me. Reviewing is ultimately a responsibility and an obligation. If fun is had, that is a fantastic bonus, but it isn't a necessity or anything that even closely resembles a guarantee while playing a game for review.
In the end, you can crap on reviewers all you like, but all they're doing is what many people have asked them to do. They're providing an opinion and some facts on a game relevant to the interests of some number of people who wanted to build their opinion secondhand. And that's okay. A lot of opinions are built that way, and they're still valid, even if borrowed. That's the beauty of opinions. They aren't right or wrong. In the case of reviews, they are more like guidelines that you may or may not adhere to. In the case of meta scores, once again, a guideline. A slightly more conclusive one if the game rates incredibly highly or fairly poorly, but there will always be those that disagree because reviewing isn't some definitive thing.
