From my understanding, reviews from critics are no different than us giving our thoughts. However, I feel that reviewers don't get nearly the same amount of time to play the game as most people do. This is their job. They can only play so much before they have to move on to the next game. Reviews and word of mouth play a major factor on how successful a game, movie, etc will be. Just look at Batman v Superman. That movie had all the markings to make over a billion dollars at the worldwide box office: huge marketing campaign, Batman and Superman meeting up on the big screen for the first time, DC beginning to set up their DC Extended Universe, it having Wonder Woman, etc. However, because of the scathing reviews and awful word of mouth, BvS had a terrible second weekend drop, and the film never recovered after that.
Star Fox Zero also had a similar fate, though not as tragic. The game got wildly mixed reviews, and this divided a lot of people, which lead into a "Play it for yourself" campaign. This is why I label these types of games as "Milage May Vary." You may like it, you may hate it, or you might even be conflicted about it.
Personally, I don't have a problem with reviews, but not everyone is going to be good at explaining themselves (which is extremely frustrating), and can lead to GI's terrible and misinformed Sonic reviews. I'll always be an advocate of the "Play it for yourself" campaign, but if you played the game and happened to agree with the critics, then that's all that matters. Just don't go out of your way to make them stupid for liking/not liking the game and vice versa.