I would suspect that he's talking in very general terms about a lot of different things. I know of a couple games that were given good reviews on websites and then did something to alienate their fan following, but other than that I don't usually pay attention to what the majority of gamers think about a given game, however that opinion is revealed (by polls, forums, chatting with my real-world friends, and whatnot).

Plus, there's the fact that the most vocal players of a lot of games are hard-core fans of the series, and will thus both notice and care about things like continuity and contiguousness that reviewers who aren't painfully familiar with the storyline wouldn't pick up on.

Well they both have advantages and disadvantages. You've got fanatics that will give anything attached to their favorite series or publisher or developer a ten, and you've got pro. reviewers knocking down games for reasons the fans actually like the series.

I will certainly say between the two, I've managed to save my money and not wind up with a game like Spore.

I suppose it does pay off then.

The reason I don't pay much attention though is my opinion generally seems to conflict with most reviewers/gamers in any case - though I suppose they are useful for learning more about games but in general those arbitrary numbers at the end of a review mean nothing to me.

There's a few issues I think.

1. Some games are deceptive, and most critics don't spend very long with them. Civ 5 is a great example. The first playthrough is quite good. It's only after you get good at it that you start noticing things like how the new happiness and luxury system doesn't scale to large maps and works really badly the larger the map is. Or that puppet states which sound great on paper are in fact a disaster and will bankrupt you if you actually use them. Or that worker automation should never be used. Or that annexed cities also suck and don't get many bonuses from social policies (the optimum way to play is to actually raze everything you can and just build a new city in the best spots). Or that the AI is TERRIBLE, doesn't know how to deal with the new combat rules, barely builds ships, and pretty well never builds airplanes.

Once you do know that, the game gets boring quickly because it's just so much easier then Civ 4. Very few critics will ever play long enough to realize that and most of them don't know the game well enough to see any of it. Tom Chick's review describes what happens almost perfectly though. Users on the other hand play a lot and study the game, so they do notice it.

2. Reviews like certain genres more then others. This is a lot like in the movies, where there's critic movies, and movies that are actually popular. In the last few years they haven't overlapped very well (to the point that they added 5 more nominees for Best Picture Oscar due to viewers turning out after years of nothing anybody had actually seen being nominated). Users on the other hand only tend to buy and review genres they like.

3. Some games just get a pass due to their name. I'm looking at Final Fantasy 14 as an example. This review talks about what is flat out dealbreaker stuff, but gives it over 80% despite that. I mean, how do you end a review with "We can’t recommend that you spend $50, and then $12.99 a month after the first 30 days, on a title that has as many flaws as FFXIV does" and give it 84% at the same time? (Final Fantasy 13 got equally easy treatment for what if it were called "New Franchise RPG 1" would have been absolutely demolished for being the worlds prettiest hallway simulator.) 14 is a buggy, flawed, broken mess with some of the worst controls a PC game has ever seen. This is amateur stuff that was bad when it was called FF 11, and in a MMO landscape post WoW is simply unacceptable trash. The users are getting it right and the reviewers are out to lunch, because a Final Fantasy game really can't be rated that badly.

4. When the users hate the DRM, they rate games into oblivion no matter what they think of the game itself. Reviews don't tend to do that.

I too was completely baffled at my experience playing FFXIV's beta, and the defense of the pos menu system they are using, on top of keeping all the servers in Japan making a slow menu even worse with lag plus the fact the game is clearly, clearly designed for a controller. Most of the pro. reviewers are giving the game the sound pounding it deserves. The review you've mentioned is not the first time I've seen a reviewer write something like: not fit for consumption but then give it a pretty good score. Gamespot gave it a harsh review so did Game Trailers. I enjoyed Game Trailers' review best, maybe because he speaks well, and as sad as it was to experience some of the flaws, he made me smile a few times as he pointed them out. http://www.gametrailers.com/video/review-hd-final-fantasy/705893 . I think between the two XIV is getting a  mixed bag review when it should be pretty down there. Maybe they're listening to the begging of not reviewing the game at launch from SE... hmmm, where have i heard that before?

Take a look at Grand Theft Auto IV.  Huge budget, massive advertising campaign leading to its release and every website in creation dedicated articles every day to anything remotely connected to GTA IV.  It was a critical and financial smash, with some reviewers calling it the future of video games.  It has one of the highest Meta-critic scores in histroy, and sold a bucket load of copies on its openeing day.  Every single aspect of the game was hailed as perfect.
Fast forward till today, and see how the 'general consensus' has changed.  The boring fetch quests, the annoying mobile phone, the weak sub-stories and conflicting themes and the loss of the over-the-top fun that made San Andreas one of the all time greatest games.

Now, take a look at Deus Ex.  Not a critical smash, not a huge financial success, minimal advertising and a modest budget.  Called an 'interesting mix-up' upon its release.  Critised for it's visuals, cliche plot and glitchy A.I.
Fast forward till today, and now Deus Ex is widely considered the greatest game ever made, with all of it's perceived faults merely adding to its charm and wonder.

Reviewers in recent times tend to have two review score systems.  The first caters to any normal release; it ranges from 1-9.  The second review scale caters to high profile releases, such as installments in major franchises.  It ranges from 8-10.
Final Fantasy XIII is widely considered the worst FF game ever made and certainly has been mocked enough for being a boring, long winded game with little to no actual gameplay.  It's boring plot, cliche one-note characters and annoying voice acting combined with the total lack of exploration left fans with a bad taste in their mouths.  Despite this, it received 8's and 9's on its release, and sold pretty well.  In hindsight, many reviewer publications refer to the FFXIII as a terrible game, yet their review doesn't reflect this.
Part of it is simple; Square Enix buys a lot of advertisements, if you piss them off they are less likely to buy adds in your magazine/website.  The other part is also simple; the reviewers get caught up in the hype.  Modern Warfare 2 is a prime example; some websites had coverage of the line forming to buy the game at release, interviewing people who had simply bought the game - they hadn't even opened the box to play it yet!

I trust User Reviews, nothing else.

LOL.  I was just about to type something similar.  Civ 5's initial reviews where so positive, I am not sure if the reviewers are either retarded, where playing a completely different game, or payed off by Take 2.  I would say most fans of the series where disappointed with the game. 

I find that reviewers are wrong a lot.

On ag.ru (biggest russian game reviews site) it lists both reviewer's score and users average score for games, and in most cases scores are close (+/- 10). There were some cases when review and users score differed much, but usually its due to reviewer's bias to game/genre/company. However reviewers usually try to judge game by some rules, while users scores are completely arbitrary. 100/100 or 0/100 are VERY rare for reviewers, but users use these scores all the time.

So yeah, I'd say neither of these are truly objective, but I'm still cautious about anything receiving lower than 60/100 from both review and users.

It's known that in at least one case, game materials were tied to review scores for a AAA-game. 

I don't think there's a wholesale conspiracy, but I do think payola is alive and well for the biggest games, and that mid-major devs such as Stardock are probably the losers in all of this.

Part of it is just legacy/expectations. Reviewers fall victim to this in a big, big way. If a game is from a company that is beloved for producing great games, and the game is highly anticipated, then it gets stellar reviews no matter what the case. The most recent example of this is Civ 5. It is not a bad game, don't get me wrong, it got my $50. However it is not the 10/10 that most sites gave it. Compared to Civ 4 it is lacking in some key ways. It needs some work to be as good. However it was anticipated and Firaxis is beloved so it got through the roof ratings. If you go read user reviews, and some of the less "mainstream" reviews you'll find that indeed it is a good game, with some flaws that need fixing and it gets the more 7-8/10 that it should.

Valve would be another great example of this. There seems to be nothing those guys can release that every reviewer doesn't claim to be the best thing EVAR. Again, it is a case of them wanting it to be great. Because Half Life was such a cool, genre defining game, now everything they do is rated as wonderful, no matter what. A fairly recent example would be Left 4 Dead 2. The original L4D was a fun game, but I don't think quite worthy of its universal praise. However L4D2 was really nothing but a cash in. Released a year later, almost nothing new, it was an expansion back in all but name. Not bad, but not worth $50. However it again got universal acclaim, because it was from Valve. Had it been form someone else, it probably would have been looked down upon as a ripoff.

Reviews are more useful in the case of less anticipated releases. When it is just a game that is coming out from a developer that isn't really special, they often are far more accurate. They evaluate what the game is, not what they want it to be.

However some people, Valve, Blizzard, Rockstar, etc, just don't get real reviews. Their reputation influences things and so the reviewers inflate things without realizing it. The have mentally prepared themselves for the game to be awesome, and so it is to them even if it really isn't.