Originally posted by: Frackal
I honestly feel frustrated with the reviewers' extreme gushing about this game. It's weird and nonsensical to me.
I think the gaming press is lazy. They *********NEVER HOLD GAMING COMPANIES TO ACCOUNT FOR SHOWING VASTLY INFLATED FEATURES, FAKED CGI "GAMEPLAY" MOVIES, SCRIPTED AI, ETC ETC AT E3 TYPE EVENTS TO FALSELY HYPE A GAME, AND THEN NONE OF IT IS PRESENT IN THE LIMP, DILAPIDATED RELEASED VERSION********
They are too easily lulled into giving games that are good but really lacking in some areas (HL2's story for example, Doom 3's story, Oblivion's story) superstar ratings.
I hope it's not because of ad money, because I do see ads all over a lot of these review sites. Perhaps it is more profitable to give a good review to a big-deal game with high advertising dollars. Not saying this is universally true, but I am honestly suspicious about it.
The professional reviews are becoming increasingly worthless these days. Almost all of the major, high profile releases are given very high scores by the review sites. Either the reviewers have very short memories about previous games, or they have console reviewers (who generally have lower standards) play the games on the 360 and then just copy the review for the PC version. Or there may be some shady deals going on behind the scenes, as you say.
I think one of the most extreme examples of this was Splinter Cell: Double Agent, which got high scores across the board even though the game is so buggy that it cannot even be completed without using various workarounds. I have a feeling that the review sites all played one of the console versions and just tacked on the same review with minor adjustments into their PC sections.