We know Jim Sterling, don't we? We expected him to review Final Fantasy XIII the way he reviews all games: with a tad of enthusiasm and a lot of rocks ready in case of disturbance. In the end, the result was less than satisfying for a bunch of people, who immediately turn back on the writer of the article.
This leads to the second point, the consequences of giving games bad review scores: if I just said that a critic determines, to some degree, how will people spend a part of their existences with videogames, think of how damaging can it be when a game is badly reviewed. The answer to the developers can be pretty drastic, but to the player? Not really. In the worst sense, you're losing a good chance, but with the amount of good games being launched per year, you're hardly missing that much. Sure, no one wants to be left out of the God of War bandwagon, or miss the Modern Warfare of each year, but if you DO miss it, pretending it was a review score that made you do it, you sure as hell will still play a lot of good games in their place. Some of them even similar to it.
Now take the opposite idea: Having a bad game be given a high review score. You know what that does? That kills the game's length in hours of your lifetime. When you finish it, you will have wasted a good portion of your existence into something not worth your time and money. You will be a little dead inside and possibly angry at the person who wrote that review. As a gamer, I'll take low scores in my most awaited franchises anyday over high scores who make me waste my gamertime, which, as you grow older, becomes scarcer each day.
With that said, I think Jim is too forgiving, I'm waiting for him to slap a 0 on a game. I mean, how the hell can I trust in someone's 10 scores if I've never seen him give a 0 to something. Give me my Subject Zero, Jim! I'm waiting.
LOOK WHO CAME: