I don't think reviewers in the past were more honest, informed or experienced, I just think reviewers (and gamers in general) need.. more to be mind blown, and aren't shy of giving a game maybe an 8/10 or a 9/10 whereas before it'd be 9 and 10s.Is this actually true? If so, what "standards" are we talking about here, graphics, bugs? Because it's certainly not necessarily gameplay.
Also, having more reviews now doesn't actually mean much of anything depending on what crowd you fall under. During the 90s - 00s there might have been "less" overall reviews, but can you honestly argue against there actually being more honest, or informed and experienced reviewers? Sure, you had shit like Gamepro and then later IGN, but prior to the second mainstream explosion of 2005 - 2006 a lot of these magazines and initial sites were started by those who generally enjoyed playing games during a period where it was still particularly niche or "for nerds".
Now you have a lot more sources for reviews, but there are so many different people playing games now, and for different reasons that you essentially have to find what "group" your current tastes or habits align with and essentially ignore everything else.
I think a good example of reviewers being more critical is GTA V, it's 1 point lower than GTA 4 but I think every single person who's played both would agree it should be higher. I know it's only one point so it's probably not the best example but it's the best I could think of
In the past a big AAA game would need to be a disaster to get like a 70 metacritic, now average but fully competent games get 70s. Sadly the mindset hasn't changed that much and 70s = disaster still, but yeah.