If you're defining "professional" as "pretentious arsehole who thinks their subjective opinion is an objective fact" then there isn't any point.

If by "professional" you mean "somebody who likes games and gets paid to share what they think about them", ie. the standard definition, then there's plenty of reason. For people to see what games are like, decide if it's something they think is worth buying, or in some cases simply just for entertainment value.

I wonder why somebody arrogant enough to say somebody elses opinion on a game is objectively wrong and their one is correct would look at review scores...
If somebody didn't think it was a good game, then they just didn't think it was a good game. They're not wrong, they're not lying and they shouldn't be censored just because you disagree. They decide what they like, not you.

Again, you seem to be confusing with caring whether people like a game with the game actually being judged fairly. If someone thinks they should be employed to share their personal taste in games, rather than actually judging the quality of the game as neutrally as possible, then they can't complain when they get criticised for doing their job wrong.

Even when trying to be objective, not everyone will see a game at the same level of quality. Which is why having more viewpoints help. And once you've found the two ends of the spectrum, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle, which is how aggregates are meant to work. When you have the vast majority of reviews between 85-100 and a few at 80, then your two reviews at 60 and 70 are officially outside the spectrum. Metacritic's algorithm should be adjusted so that major outliers like that have less-to-no effect on the score, rather than having the greatest.

If you wanna throw the word 'pretentious' around, well it's rather pretentious to think your personal grievances with bugs in a game or apparently 'offensive incorporation of culture', should be so important that you can judge a game that much differently than everyone else and most likely making the score that much more inaccurate. Just because of your personal subjectivity. And that's just their personal issues with the game.

Even worse (For the Gamespot reviewer at least), is how they misinterpret the superficialness of the world as being a flaw instead of a deliberate design choice, meant to display how the world is controlled by Megacorps flooding people with meaningless entertainment, to distract them from the harsh realities and corruptness around them while they drain their money/souls. Likewise the Cyberpunks' Kitsch-- outrightly known as 'style over substance' --is the idea that even if you can accomplish great things in the world, it won't matter if you can't make people people notice with something over-the-top and flashy.

The symbolic superficiality thoughout the game is one of the most basic principles. I can understand that just from reading some of the associated material, meanwhile this reviewer had supposedly 50 hours with the game and still doesn't get it. That's not subjectivity, that's incompetence.

And just to clarify before you misinterpret what I'm saying again, I do not condone any sort harassment or other unecessary acts against anyone. But if the case of this Gamespot reviewer being 'lit up' is just people criticising them for doing a poor job, I don't see how you can cry foul. I've seen other reviewers mention similar issues (the bugs at least), but didn't feel the need to exaggerate those issues throughout the review and conclusion, or dock several more points for it.

If your job is to criticise and review other people's work, yet you yourself don't want to be open to any scrutiny, it just makes you a hypocrite.

This got longer than I expected, probably because you descended to namecalling, but I've said my piece.

You have a problem with Gamespot, but not publishers that tie bonuses to an arbitrary congregated score???

I've actually read the Gamespot review as well as Games beat and PC gamer and they make valid well constructed, backed up points to explain their scores. Yet not to 'screw' devs out of a bonus (which is not how CDPR works btw) they should get in line with the yes men and alter their scores?

Any site giving this game a perfect score, 100, in the state the game is currently in, is part of the problem. None of those even expect the day 1 patch to address all the issues, not any time soon after release. For example from one of the 100s, "but it’s not without fault. It’s let down by elements that should have been better; not the bugs, in particular (because they will be fixed), but things like the melee combat, the explanation of systems, the oppressive influx of side quests." Perfect score!

Let's blame the ones that actually reflect their impressions in a (still meaningless) score.

There was a glimmer of hope for reviews at the start of this gen when it briefly looked like we were getting a reversal from the bloated scores. It's worse now than ever with tons of small sites pushing out a 100 score asap for clicks. Leaving the ones with more realistic scores open to abuse.

Eurogamer had it right to get rid of scores and simply go with recommended, which isn't even based on how good the game actually is, just whether the reviewer would recommend it. Still you get the endless nonsense in the comments why one game got the one badge and not the other. Just read the text and decided for yourself what you find important. (Not that I'm saying you don't but people put way too much value on an average score)

Did you read the view? She did get it, just doesn't agree with the execution of it.

I found and read tons of text logs, scoured people's private messages, listened to radio and TV programs and random NPC conversations, and I struggled to find justifications for many of Cyberpunk's more questionable and superficial worldbuilding choices. It's a world where megacorporations rule people's lives, where inequality runs rampant, and where violence is a fact of life, but I found very little in the main story, side quests, or environment that explores any of these topics. It's a tough world and a hard one to exist in, by design; with no apparent purpose and context to that experience, all you're left with is the unpleasantness.

People should actually read the GS review, it is right it gets slated. Bringing up political and what not viewpoints should not be in it, not reflect a score, it is up to the gamer if they see that as an issue, I wouldn't so don't enforce your bullshit on me. That particular writer should of been fired years ago, just unacceptable professionalism.

Can you give me the link of that review?I'm curious to read it.

"It's a tough world and a hard one to exist in, by design; with no apparent purpose and context to that experience."

The game is titled Cyberpunk. The underlying meaning of 'punk', to be independant and rebel against the injust system. The whole world is an injust system in the game, because that's the point. It's not meant to have great purpose, it's just a shitty injust world, filled with over-the-top craziness, and you have to try and fight to exist in it. Questioning if that kind of world could even have purpose, or should exist at all, is another common and likely deliberate theme.

Saying you don't understand the context for making the world so unpleasant and superficial, is just saying you never understood the preface for the entire game to begin with. It reads as a lot of 'I can see what they're saying, but can't understand why', therefore just say it's pointless. Because this reviewer couldn't connect to it on a personal level, they've judged it lower than others have.

People should actually read the GS review, it is right it gets slated. Bringing up political and what not viewpoints should not be in it, not reflect a score, it is up to the gamer if they see that as an issue, I wouldn't so don't enforce your bullshit on me. That particular writer should of been fired years ago, just unacceptable professionalism.