I gladly admit I have become pretty intolerant & demanding on games over the years... which is mostly tied to my full time job and the resulting less time to play. Adding all the games are a business mentality which became so dominant in the recent years my expectations are also altered to business levels rather than fun levels (What? You [generic non specific reader] expect that only works in one direction? Wrong!)

So while I still would totally play a game even if it has lousy 15% rating if it should hit all the buttons I'd love about a game; the chances are pretty non-existant that a 15% game accidentally manages to be something I'd love to play but suck to so many others.

I like to read articles, hear what trustworthy YouTubers have to say and then user reviews to get the complete picture even if most of them are trash.

Disagree. It's also important to get the viewpoint of people who may not be familiar with "the rules" of a genre. For instance, I might decide someday to dive into adventure games, but if I follow only the advice of people who are long-time adventure game players then I'll miss the perspective of other new players like me, looking into the genre with fresh eyes.

People are crazy, just look at this:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/05/16/i-really-wanted-to-be-able-to-play-stellaris/

People went crazy because he gave his opinion on a game/genre he tried and wants to like/play but can't.
They went nuts accusing him of stuff. >_<
It wasn't even a review or anything.

Here's the thing: As a long-time fan of the RPG genre, when somebody docks points from an RPG for being an RPG, there is a problem.

It's not much different, IMO, from docking points for characteristics of a game that are not true. For instance, I once saw a review of Final Fantasy Legend that criticized the game for restricting where you can save. That would be a valid criticism if it were correct; only problem is, the game actually *does* let yo save anywhere, hence the criticism is based on an incorrect claim.

Another example: Suppose you saw a review of a visual novel that scored it poorly because the "game" "had too many cutscenes and not enough gameplay". Would you consider that review to be trustworthy? (I put "game" in quotes because, with visual novels, we're getting close to the line that separates games from other forms of media.)

I get your point, but the thing is it shouldn't be a review if the dude can't play it. In the lowest scored review for Banished on Metacritic, the writer complains about the lack of mechanics that are present in the the game but he couldn't figure out how to use because he skipped the tutorial. And that review score impacts on other people's decision to buy that game or not, which is extremely unfair to the people who worked on the game.

RPS is cool because they don't do review scores, which in my opinion is the appropriate way of giving the writer freedom to go for a totally subjective review. Once you decide to put a number on it, that number needs to be based on something more than I get it/I don't get it. Otherwise, it's really irresponsible and it should be criticized and frowned upon.

The thing is it's not a review.
Someone else entirely reviewed the game.
This is just John trying to play the game and explaining why he couldn't.

Absolutely nothing!

Yes and no. If it's just a score and no write-up to go along with it, sure, that's a problem. If the reviewer spells out her or his own objections with it, then it's not a problem. If a reviewer misses a feature, that's not necessarily because that person doesn't understand the genre; it's simply that a technical detail was missed.

Take it over to another genre, the wargame. If only hardcore grognards are the ones we should listen to, then we miss the viewpoint of the person dipping their toes into wargaming for the first time - someone to whom a fair number of review readers might relate. Suppose a reviewer can beat the huge-scale Grigsby games with one mouse hand tied behind their back and writes a scathing review of a much simpler title. Do we consider that review to be gospel because the reviewer has a lot of experience in wargames, or instead is the perspective skewed by that experience? His boredom might be the perfect genre entry for the new player.

Games players aren't all grognards or full-on RPG aficionados, and the opinions of the genre 'experts' aren't the only opinions worth considering. If I'm a new player in a genre, I'd like to hear how other new players see the title in question - because those are the same fresh eyes I'm going to be playing it with. And that's in addition to the other reviews.

Between you and me and anyone else reading, I could do away with scores and just stick to the text of a review. But hey, that's not how we humans work - we love to rank things. : )

Yes, I understand that. I'm not saying I agree with irrational criticism against gaming journalists. I was just pointing out that there are other situations, like the Banished review I mentioned, where a totally subjective review from somebody who was not able to play the game properly ended up determining a game's Metacritic aggregate score which, unfortunately, is used by many people as a reference when they are deciding to buy a game or not.

I don't understand why people read Steam/Metacritic reviews. They have done nothing to deserve this credibility.

The scoring system is too arbitrary; if the gameplay is fun but the graphics ugly the game gets a 6/10 or something.
However what if your priority is the gameplay and not how pretty the game is ? The true score for you might be 8/10 in that case, reflecting your priorities.

A related problem is that we have a collection of media channels that all pretty much like the same kind of games and prioritize the same kind of attributes in a game. So we get review scores that are not significantly different from each other.: Gamespot scores it 9/10, IGN 8.8/10 and so on ... i.e. no real difference.

The most obnoxious though are the 'essentials' or 'must buy' reviews. Herding the masses to the same point.

As a Finn, I would go with the gaming journalism.

Only when "Bound by Flame" gets Finnish token disapproval, and then The Withcer- series does not get the same...

The mere fan--boy effect, I think. Besides, it's fine, mainly.

I just happened to find an article (satire, I think) that seems particularly relevant to this topic (and, in particular, to my comment about much of the review scale not being used).

Depends what you're after, worth reading to find the initial state of a games release.
But even that's not of great value IF the games patched etc...within a decent time frame.
Demos would fill the gap, if more bothered to do them.
I pay attention to specs and all that guff beyond that not worth a pinch of salt really.

No because you cannot represent a complex opinion numerically.

Most reviews are practically paid for.

See 2