I find that most of the games I love get poor reviews, in the 60s and 70s (%), like Disaster Report, God Hand (and Gadget, which I have only recently played), Fahrenheit, Yakuza, Rez and Shenmue to an extent.
And even others that got decent review scores, like Silent Hill2, ICO and Colossus or Ôkami, I've always felt that, reading the review, they didn't present good arguments for those scores, as if they were following some media trend of giving that game a particular score because it'd suit them, or just based on looks, or as if they knew it was good, but couldn't come around to explaining why.
This seems to me as a problem of the gamereviewer profession where they're forced to play a lot of different games in a short amount of time (and I doubt that they finish most games, especially if they're not into them), and probably not doing enough research on them or decent interpretation and just take them as they are, and it's almost obvious that many games need a certain mindset for someone to get into them (like any book or movie). Thus, the big scores usually go for big, flashy, impressive games, but if you go and analyze them, there's just not enough substance to go around. Entertaining? Yes, perhaps, but driving the medium the wrong way and just quite poor on a cultural level.
And that's my 2 cents.