Do also keep in mind that review scores are one and done, and player scores are constantly able to change based on new events that occur.
It's always easier to rate a game in hindsight, but it's still up to Game Critics to take responsibility in how they go about rating their games. If you drop a review a day after a game releases you're not going to have had any time to digest the game, to explore it or to have found enough nuances to really dive into. It might work for a linear story game like Call of Duty where if you've played it once your experience isn't going to change, but with games like Mass Effect, Fallout, Outer Worlds etc. it just doesn't work that way.
A lot of individual reviewers really take their time, and when it's in a video format the whole process lets them constantly develop their opinion throughout the process, either during writing, filming or editing, there's another layer of consideration added on when you're not there to rush a review out so you can cash a paycheck, while I'm sure there's plenty of Youtube reviewers or individuals sharing that mindset, the same mindset is far more prevelent with the game critic standard. You can tell when someone's truly passionate about what they're saying.
If the consistency of your review falters because you rushed a review out when you should've waited, that's on the game reviewer not the player - and as far as the three games listed go, they're all far better later on because of the usual bugs and issues Fallout games have had to trudge through on launch that were slowly patched out, while I understand you have to take a game at face value, this still says a lot more about the reviews than it would if they'd have waited.
Fallout 3 had by far the most issues at launch, with the engine, with stability, constant crashes, it was borderline unplayable when I'd first gotten it and it still rests on top as the highest rated of the three, if anything that says more about how much the reviewers would rather rush out a review that the reader will click to bring attention to their sites than focus on the actual consistency of the reviews themselves.
There's some games that get massive drops as protest, like the GTA 5 multiplayer thing that dropped them down to negative on Steam for a while, but even then you're made aware of the practice of the companies and things you shouldn't rally to support, or that might deter you from playing a game, whereas the reviews you get from critics will always be whatever they pumped out first to get their clicks and stay on good graces with the companies the games they've reviewed belong to.