I think what gamers are really fed up with is nearly every single reviewer out there glossing over technical issues like they aren't important.

Almost all of the fallout 4 reviews mention that there are "serious" issues with game stability, bugs, framerate, etc. yet, despite the criticism and even despite labeling them as "serious issues", the game gets a 9/10 almost across the board.

WTF? apparently said issues weren't nearly as "serious" as we were led to believe, if the game still scores near-perfect on all major review sites.

Oh, except, they ARE that serious, and they are ruining the experience for many people, people for whom technical performance and stability is a BIG part of immersion and overall enjoyment of ANY game.

it's long past time that we acknowledge what we already know, and indeed, have had proof of for a while now - game journos for popular websites can say more or less what they want in the review, but when it comes time to put that number up at the end for the big triple-A title, it's 9/10 or you're out on the street.

gamers are fed up with the discrepancy, and the misleading review numbers and in general the disgusting state of game journalism. That's why they take to metacritic in droves - it's one of the only places in the game journalism/review world where real opinions and reviews, unadulterated by publisher pressure, can actually be seen and judged on their own merit.

In short, if reviewers can't muster up the courage to score a game based on their own acknowledgement of serious issues in said game, specifically by giving OBJECTIVE technical issues the same weight and importance that they give their SUBJECTIVE views on things like story and gameplay, then gamers will inevitably do it for them, and the backlash with inevitably be ugly, ironically MUCH uglier than it would have been had reviewers simply been more forthright about what they were playing, and more honest with their scores.