I wouldn't be so quick to call all outliers clickbait. These reviewers might genuinely hate a beloved game or love a hated game. If every critic agreed with every other critic it would be super boring and not very representative of the wide range of tastes among consumers.

I'm sure there are fans out there who think Breath of the Wild and Uncharted 4 are poor games. Is it so unrealistic to imagine reviewers hold the same opinions?

I'm not saying all are innocent -- there are certainly clickbait sites out there -- but I think we should be tolerant of minority opinions, as long as they're justified.

They're irritating, but i do think it's important that we don't immediately refer to anything that falls outside a game's general score curve 'clickbait'. They often are, but it's also possible for someone to simply feel differently to the majority. Given enough time and reviews, and those people and their opinions will be counted. Take me for instance; Metroid Prime is one of the highest rated games of all time, adored by many even on this forum, yet i found it fairly mediocre. I can understand why so many love it, but if i was a reviewer, i'd consider it my duty to my audience to state exactly how i felt about it.

If someone genuinely believes something is clickbait then so be it, but they should let that throw them into a frothing tribal rage, an excuse to mock everything the reviewer has ever done. It's that rage that fuels click-bait in the first place. Nothing spreads information on the internet faster than anger.

I wasn't a big fan of Uncharted 4. It's pretty simple- I enjoyed the first three games, but it seems like the fourth didn't match my test.

The difference between the reviewer and I is the fact that I'm reasonable. I didn't enjoy the game- however, my runthrough shouldn't be the deciding factor on how good the game is. Gameplay, graphics, audio, voice acting, and many other things are what we should be judging. 

There are many games which simply were not my cup of tea- that does not mean we should automatically give it a ridiculously low score. As much as I prefer Uncharted 3 over the fourth, there is simply no way I can see it being worth a 4/10. The reviewer himself poorly explained why he disliked the game in the review, whining about how he felt like every Uncharted sequel was unnecessary and just ended it there. 

Its not just games it can be on anything.

I am glad that for Zelda it came in after it got released. And how its a couple days after.

It's not so much that they are critical, it's more to do with how far their scores stray from the norm and funnily enough some times from their written evaluation and it's not just the low scores but all extreme scores, a 100 score where the vast  majority are scoring around 60 is just as culpable, now I'm not saying that they shouldn't appear, just that they don't count toward the aggregate ,another thing I would like to see is sites like metacritic emphasise what they see as a pass mark, that way you won't have people argue that 7 or 70 is by consensus par and others saying 5 or 50 is correct.

I don't like clickbait in general

So I don't like clickbait reviews either :p

Now we can't call BOTW the best game ever... so sad...

I really don't have much of an issue with a 50 or 60, as they mean average and above average. If a game isn't really striving to break boundaries in terms of gameplay or graphics, some people who aren't into that type of game will find it average or slightly above. No, my problem comes from reviewers rating a perfectly average/above average game, without many or any glitches/bugs, below average just because it was a hyped game. Some even trying to make a statement and rating it a 10 or 20, usually reserved for poor looking games that are barely playable because of poor game mechanics and/or glitches and bugs.

Take your Uncharted 4 example. They rated it a 4, or below average, when really there is no way an objective reviewer can rate it any lower than 6. There is absolutely nothing about that game that is below average. Maybe the game isn't for you and you think the gameplay is average, but as a reviewer it is impossible for you to ignore the graphical and technical achievements of the game. The graphical prowess, and the fact that the game has little to no glitches/bugs warrants it being bumped up a notch or two.

And really, I get annoyed when things go the other way, as well. I see too many games that are a buggy mess or just look average in terms of graphics getting 90s and 100s. It's fine to love the game and its story/characters/gameplay enough to enjoy the game, but that is no excuse for a reviewer to no take off a notch or two for those problems. And who says you can't like games in the 70s and 80s? Many people do. In this case, I think the problem is two-fold. One, they are worried about companies not providing them with free copies of games if they continue to not hand out 90s and 100s. And two, they don't want the hassle of 100s/1000s of fanboys coming in and complaining that their latest BIG exclusive only got a 70 or 80, when "it totally deserved 100."

I'm not really sure what would make a 'clickbait' review, as I only check out reviews from people I trust. Everything else, I kind of ignore.

I fucking hate them. It's one of the major flaws I have with Metacritc. Some websites always seem to want to fuck up a score for some clickbait shit. This bothers me with movies too. Get Out was a masterpiece and all it took was a filthy contrarian to insist on going against the grain for a few hits.

I only fuck with a few websites/YT channels for reviews and scores, in a way compiling my own Metacrtic.
My approved sites are:

Gamespot
IGN
Easy Allies
Giant Bomb
Destructoid
Polygon (lol)
Kotaku (lol)
NeoGaf (lmao)