I'm just gonna post something I said a while back in another thread:

Reviews are opinions. The only job a reviewers has is to explain to you why he/she liked or didn't like a game, to give you, the reader, a good idea whether you want to buy the game or not. The better they are at explaining it, the better the review is. And reviews can't possibly be "objective", because we all see and experience things differently. For example, one person might love a games soundtrack, while another totally hates it, and both of these opinions are fine as long as they explain why.

If everyone would try to review games "objectively", most would just need to say: the game works.

Maybe not for us, who are already well-versed in these kind of things; but I'm sure there are people who depends on a review to purchase or not a game.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the review system. If people decide to base their purchase decision on one review, then that's their fault. But if you use the metacritic score, then I think the score given from there is a fair one which the game deserves.

I actually think Asriel did a pretty good job explaining just this point, so I wont be as thorough.

I guess it all comes down to preferences; what does the reviewer exepct of this game and what does it deliver? Maybe a gsme shouldnt be able to get a 6 AND a 10, but it all kinda depends on whos doing the review. Someone that only plays fifa wouldnt like Zelda...