We also have to take into consideration what criteria certain critics use to score a game, because sometimes it's just downright ridiculous, and bears no reflection on the actual quality of the game. Take Slant's 1-star review of Outlast 2 for example (a 20 on Metacritic). Their sole gripe that led to a 1-star review is the game's purported anti-Christian stance. Nothing about the game mechanics, design, graphics, playability, etc. Here are some excerpts:

"It’s hard to see developer Red Barrels’s game as anything more than an immature and hateful slight at anyone who dares to believe in a divine creator or a deity who may have died for their sins."

"The way that Outlast 2 frames crimes against humanity seals the conclusion that the developers are superficially anti-Christian and anti-religion."

"When the journalist’s wife exclaims, 'Fuck you, and fuck your God,' she might as well be talking to any believer who plays this repulsive game."

That is just ridiculous to me. Just because a certain game's perceived philosophy goes against your own personal beliefs does not make it a bad game deserving of 1-star, especially if you're a professional review publication whose scores have an actual effect. As a consumer, I don't give a fuck if the game is perceived to be pro- or anti-whatever; I just want to know if it's fun or not, if it's thrilling, what the gameplay is like, how the graphics look, etc.