The reviews are pretty mediocre for this, if the devs spent more time ironing out the creases and sending out decent builds for review ahead of time, they would make a lot more money and gain a better reputation.
I doubt it. If a reviewer is not willing to look past some bugs and glitches they wouldn't pin a glowing review on the game anyway, even if it was 100% clean.
The fact is that this game is not Skyrim or Witcher 3, it is not a mass appeal product. It stubbornly does its own thing and tells you to either take it or leave it.
Warhorse could've easily pushed the reviews much higher if they included a standard saving system, 3rd person view, archery with a reticle or a much more accessible melee combat. That would make the game appeal to more causal gamers and reviewers much more so they would be more willing to look past the technical issues. But Warhorse didn't do that, they stuck to their vision.
For all those reasons I expect 6/10 or 7/10 reviews for mainstream outlets like IGN or Gamespot, and glowing reviews from smaller outlets catering to gamers interested in something a bit deeper and serious.
After all it's already showing from the first reviews coming in.