My problem typically isn't with scores, but rather the actual review content, with reviewers sometimes downplaying serious problems such as Demon's Souls completely inability to pause, or exaggerating trivial flaws. Furthermore, if reviewers like games I dislike and dislike games I enjoyed, then I cannot take them seriously as reviewers. I guess a problem with mainstream reviews is that each reflects one person's opinion. What I would like to see is reviews written by multiple persons, by at least one person who liked a game and one who disliked a game.
Thing is, although not being able to pause Demon's Souls (or Destiny) is a bummer, it's intrinsic to the nature of a game that's designed to played online, with the ability for players to jump in and out at any time. So a reviewer would be right to mention it, but in my opinion, it'd be wrong of them to criticize the game for that. If you want a game that can pause, you shouldn't play that game, and that's all there is to it, because that is a feature that's mandated by the entire premise of the gameplay.
As far as reviews by multiple people, I don't think any reviewing group, be they us or GameSpot, has the time or money to have every game reviewed by multiple people. That said, on high profile or divisive games, I do like the "second opinion" stuff I've seen in Game Informer, or our own multiple reviews on a few titles. In our case, that only happens on rare occasions, but when it happens, it's because the second person felt strongly that they had something important to say. Of course, I know that we're not necessarily considered "mainstream," and I think the staff would all agree that's a good thing.