Pretty much this.

reviewers are becoming irrelevent, lact ditch effert to survive is click bait and harsh reviews to casue mini uproars.  

Click's.

Reviewers or gaming websites are becoming a thing of the past. Just like Gaming magazines did.

People will just find some youtuber or something and watch that. They don't care what some big company says about another big companies game.

So the big companies are doing what they can to try and get clicks. Whether thats reviewing a game a 10/10 such as Bayonetta 2 on whatever site it was that made everyone go "wtf" or giving a pokemon amazing remake job of a 9.8 game a 7.8.

Just clicks.

Gotta love how reviewers have gone from being the word of God when people agreed with them to biased/irrelevant now that they're harsher on people's favourite games.

What in the hell bs are you spewing, never in two decades of gaming i lived were reviewers ever though of that by anyone really.  Its always been a big preview to most and maybe justification to buy by the ignorant and weak minded.

Well... DC is published by Sony and its developed by Evolution Studios which is a Subsidiary of Sony Computer Entertainment. These guys have been working on Sony's platform since 2001 according to wiki and they made 3 racing games that had online on ps3 so working with PSN and Sony's online infrastructure should be nothing new. Plus, docking points for DC would affect Sony and Evolution Studios which = affecting the publisher/developer = deserved.

MCC has a similar situtions and should be rightfully punished

Lbp3 is published by Sony so one would think they would have higher standards by now when it comes to shipping games unless the developers told them it was finished but regardless, both will be blamed for lower than expected review scores

All last gen reviews were held up as some kind of divine truth by a lot of gamers. Only now is that starting to change.

Me, I've been saying for years that they're just opinions, and that's not going to change if they decide to give my favourite game a 98 Meta.

I would have though GTA4 was all it was needed for people to realize that Reviewers were not to be taken as God.

Hyperbolic crap.

Last gen was the gen most gamers started complaining about reviewers inflating scores. I'd love for you to find examples of where "a lot of gamers" espoused that sort of reverence towards reviewers. Reviews and metacritic are useful for broadly comparative purposes. But no sane person would say one review is proof positive of the quality of a game, nor would a sane person cite just a few points difference in metascore as proof that one game is better than another.

The only time people take a review as gospel is when it's their personal favourite reviewer based on the fact that their gaming tastes closely align with yours. If you can find such a reviewer then they are like gold because they really are an excellent basis for making buying deicisions, for you. But probably not many other people.

People were holding up "oh x game got a 95, I'm so getting it" or "I'm skipping this one, it got a 79" left right and centre. Arguments on game quality constantly devolved into Metacritic/Gamerankings list wars. Oh sure, people bitched if their favourite game got slammed, but Metacritic was still largely held up as a measuring stick of quality. Still is to a degree, just thankfully less so. Maybe this year's low scores will teach people to think for themselves.