I can't seem to enjoy the damn game. Not my kind of game. I love FPS and TPS, but this game just doesn't entertain me at all. I find it boring.

So just cause you think those scores are too low, you claim that the whole system is flawed?

The main problem with the reviews is that they complained there wasn't much to do.
Well, Bungie explained a lot of times how Destiny was a long-run project. With raids, events, etc...

So of course, if you rush like hell to make your Day One review, you'll miss the core of the game and be disappointed.

Destiny is not a 5-7/10. Not a 9/10 either, imo, but a solid 8/10. With friends, it's a blast.
Excellent gameplay, amazing art design, great soundtrack, etc... It's really great. Yeah, the "main" story isn't that great, but well, we kinda expected that.

But the raids are a great thing: the first one took 15h after its release to be beaten ! And there will be a lot more !

The only thing that is really annoying is the content obviously held back by Activision for DLCs...
But well, it's Activision after all.

It's not a question of going my way or not. I do not think for example that Destiny should be given a 10/10 either(Just like a few other games which I won't mention so as not to attract the ire of the internet). I'm only pointing out that the reviewing system is flawed due to the fact that the ratings are given on elements which are irrelevant to gaming such as:

1. Reputation of the company making the game

2. Publisher

3. Budget

4. What the reviewer wants the game to be as opposed to what the game is and what the target audience for the game expects it to be.

Of course, I may have failed to mention it before but not all the reviews are horrid and useless. Some field out valid points with regards to the lacunas of the game and give scores which reflect the logic of the arguements. But arguements such as "$500m budget for this game", which already reflects badly due to the poorly researched nature of this arguement goes to show that those reviews are just flawed.

Maybe the reviews ought to be more scientific with an adequate methodology and analysis section.... FYI, I'm already a CEO (Not of a powerful multinational however).

Exactly. What's weird to me is when they play COD and play the same maps for the 20th time that doesn't seem to affect the score of COD and it's selling millions and being one of the biggest franchises of all time. I don't mind the low scores it's just confusing to me that other games aren't reviewed the same.

What's weird to me is they never apply this same logic to COD. If there is much to do in this game then how can COD get such high reviews cause the single player is trash and the multiplayer is not that great.

True. It's pretty odd.

Or maybe the reviewers wanted to publish clickbait reviews about a "hyped" game being a letdown, since it seems to attract an awful lot of people and trolls.

Its not about amount of content in hours, its about amount of content in new stuff to do. The story missions are really repetitive and badly designed, the Exploration mission (forget what they are called) are even worse, their is a very limited amount of multiplayer modes, after you beat the game, you are just encouraged to grind on strike playlists, which is tedious (partially because the strikes aren't very well designed) and the raids just seem to be long strikes with no matchmaking (and an absurd difficulty (the bad kind)).

Numerically there is a lot to do, but the variety is severely lacking

Competitive (PVP) is very different than Co-op (Group PVE), because with PVP, what keeps it fresh is how your opponents behave and the strategies needed to combat them. With PVE, the strategies are pretty much always the same, it can be mastered, and there isn't enough variety to keep it fresh. The only real variety would occur when your teammates suck, which is a negative point more than anything.

I am saying that there are reviews which are flawed and claim that reviews should not be based on:

1. Reputation of the company making the game

2. Publisher

3. Budget

4. What the reviewer wants the game to be as opposed to what the game is and what the target audience for the game expects it to be.

The scores by 'some' reviewers originate from reviews which rate the game on non-gaming elements. Some are even biassed and point out elements such as the gameplay mechanics, vaunted by the majority of the gaming community to be flawed. I believe the review system to be flawed but if you think that the WHOLE system is perfect, then I am happy for you. :)

Lke everyone else stated, you gave no explanation on why reviewers reviewed it the way they did.

The major reason that journalist reviews are flawed not only for Destiny but just about every single game released, is they don't hold reviews to the same standards. There are plenty of things they give a free pass in one area because it's this type of game, but then they end up bashing another game for the same reason. Journalists also seem to review based on hype and anti hype, often reviewing based on what scores they think the public wants to see.  Being crappy players doesn't help either, as you'll often see many games get lower scores simply because the reviewer wasn't any good at the game.