You cannot be serious. To some extent, some gaming sites are driven by hits, so you could probably argue that they are striving for getting the first review with the biggest amount of exposure and hits, but in no way are the many flaws and problems associated with the critically bankrupt reviewers caused by the readers. The general trend seen in the review field of the games industry is that the writers seem to prefer high-budget, sleek, polished experiences, even if these experiences have very few creative risks and/or innovations, or are incredibly homogeneous.
It is true that some of the readership might become angry if their fanboy/-girl opinions aren't validated by an almost arbitrary review score, but I don't see how that should in any way influence the reviewer. In any case, if they don't have to spine to formulate and state their own well-argued critical assessment of a product, then they shouldn't be reviewing games at all.