Well, apparently every game ever made is solidly downvoted and should not be purchased. In fact, every product of ANY kind is solidly downvoted and should not be purchased. Because there are BILLIONS of people who have not bought everything ever made, so I guess those billions have "voted no" and we need to count their votes. So never buy anything again. Billions of people can't be wrong.
We could do that, we could flip the script too, and buy everything, because billions of people have.
Realistically, we can all do what we do already: Watch our various "trusted" outlets. Mine don't happen to be professional critics, or game journalists, in the strictest sense. Some people are going to take these "reviews" at face value, and to those people I say "Well duh". I mean, the Steam store has a warning on the game's page from the developers telling you that EA is going to be an unpolished buggy mess, why should I click on a "review" that's not going to tell me anything Larian didn't already tell me? I've seen them sycophant it up for some developers, even when the game is truly bad, why do I want to add to their revenue stream for an EA title? I don't, and further, I won't. I also won't be reading/watching anything they have to say post launch. I'm not interested in what they have to say, because from my end, they are more influenced by what they get from developers, than whether it's any good or not.
I will be watching game forums, with a grain of salt. Because I've seen game forums implode because they didn't get what they wanted, so the game was doomed out of the gate. DA 2 had it's issues, to be sure, but it was nowhere near as bad as the community would lead you to believe. The same is true for Andromeda, although I could never reproduce some of the bugs that were featured on YouTube, despite spending hours trying to, because I wanted my own video of them. DA 2 was doomed out of the gate because "not the Warden", and Andromeda was doomed out of the gate because "not Shepard, and Mass Effect is Shepard's story". I was 45 minutes into a review before the reviewer actually said that in his review. I wish he would have led with that, so that I'd know that, if I was going to spend all that time, I'd at least be aware of his bias before hand. Of course, because clicks, he didn't do that, so he got to seed that algorithm. We could write what I'd imagine would be a rather accurate copy of a "review" of this EA by simply reading the topic titles on this forum alone. I wonder, how close to a 1 to 1 reproduction would it actually be?
So trust who you want. If that's dedicated game "journalists", or even players. For myself? I'm not going to trust game "journalists", and I don't fully trust players, but at least with the players, I can get some context from posts/post history. If I try that with game "journalists", they're all going to be as useful to me as MetaCritic, which is to say, not at all.