One of the worst and most annoying things a reviewer can do is base a rating on hype. Assassin's Creed, for example, was bashed horribly by reviewers all over. There is a sweep of hate going around, and yet most reviewers in the end give it a 9.0 or higher. Why? Why bash a game over and over in areview and then give it a high rating?
The monkey who did a video review on Twilight Princess (who, ironically, was later fired for giving a bad review on Kane & Lynch) bashed it continuously, and then gave it an 8.9.
People come up with Hypes all by themself. If you're going to review a game, review it honestly, not based on what other people think.
On the same note, some reviewers will buy into the hype so strongly that they will go on and on about how great the game is, without mentioning a single bad thing about it. Yet, they don't give it a 10. If there's nothing bad about a game, it needs a 10. But since of course most games have something bad in it, most games don't deserve a 10. I'm speaking of course about the Halo 3 reviewer... (hmm, same monkey if I'm not mistaken).
Instead of listening to professional reviewers, who are paid to review games that they clearly aren't interested in (due to their obviously biased thought patterns), find out from the players who enjoy similar games, and have played the same games as you. In fact, try to find someone who gave more or less the same ratings on some of the same games you did.
Gamespot was great for video reviews, until Greg Kasavin disappeared. Now we have Halo fanboys writing our rpg reviews.
This is for ranting, right? This is my rant.