That if you don't like the core of a title, you likely won't enjoy it much. For whatever reason, you ran with my mention of Monster Hunter, when it was just a throwaway example. Also, that the overwhelming majority of reviewers enjoyed it. It's valid to dislike it, but it's also suspect when you only want to push the outlier opinion despite, presumably, never having played it.
Ok, so the only thing I'm pushing is against the attitude that because it's a low score, despite it laying out why they scored it the way it did, that it's some how less of an opinion or that they shouldn't be playing video games. It's childish. I've not once commented on the quality of the game myself, merely been pointing out what other reviewers have said and calling out that terrible attitude that some defenders in this thread have had. And the core of the game isn't just robot monsters, if that was the case, sure 10/10, but it's a third person action shooter open world game. There's a lot of baggage in the third person shooter genre and a whole different type of baggage for the open world. How they handle all of it, seems to be commendable, but at the end of the day, it's all about everything working together. It's why many reviewers have said the game is more than the sum of its parts, it works for some and not for others.
A review is not just a subjective opinion
There is no guide to follow on how a review "should" be. Every review is subjective, in everyway, down to even giving the game a score or recommendation. Every review is about what you take out of it. I don't even read giant bomb because i don't really agree with a lot of reviews, but you can search my posts and you'll never once see me in a thread saying this, or saying they should just stop playing games cause their views don't align with mine.