To a certain extent, reviews can only ever be a generalisation. I have two or three guitars that I feel are on a par with each other, but I'll go through phases where for weeks one is a definite favourite. Then I'll pick up one of the others, and all of a sudden it will feel fresher and more interesting than it did when I was playing it day in day out. The same for amp settings - sometimes I want the familiar, and sometimes I want a change. What we all really want from our instruments is creative inspiration - and that depends as much on the context of your day's playing (mood, what you played yesterday, what sound you've got in your head today) as it does on the instrument itself. Our reviews of our own gear might change from week to week.
Added to that, what you get for your money has improved no end over the last 20 years, especially at the budget end of the market, hence the average review range being 3.5-4.5 stars. There's a lot of gear that might not be to your personal taste, but there's less that's actually definitively bad. There are certainly quality control issues (at all costs, but mostly with cheaper gear), but trying out the guitar or amp before you buy should avoid the majority of these.
I guess what a well written review is there to do is give you an idea of which pieces of gear might be worth checking out; from there it's up to you. And if you really like something that hasn't had good reviews, who cares? You're the one playing it, and the most interesting music often comes from people using gear in an unorthodox fashion. The other reason for reviews is so that we can live vicariously, by reading about expensive kit we know we'll never own but that we can still dream about. It's up to you whether that floats your boat or not.
Paul.
