tippy2k2 said:
That's why I'm always dubious of everyone screaming that a site has been paid off; credibility is EVERYTHING and unless your ship is already sinking and you want/need the quick money, no reviewer will kill their reputation to give a game a score they don't think it deserves.
Well that would depend how you define "paid off". If those words bring a picture of two shadowy figure trading briefcases and shaking hands then of course people don't get paid off, that's how you get caught.
The relationship between mainstream reviewers and the developers seems to me a lot like the one shared between mainstream media and politicians: A system of favors.
A "fair" reviewer would be more likely to get exclusive interviews, or be granted a pass for the biggest gaming expos. They might get an early copy of the game (which is huge because that is what nets you the most traffic). Sometimes they don't even try to hide it and just sell advertising space on their website (like Gamespot did for K&L2 in that infamous scandal). I've seen IGN do that too though I can't remember the specific games.
Not to mention IGN had one of their most famous contributors appear in Mass Effect 3, which I somehow doubt was all in good fun considering her role was both pointless and terrible.
They don't so much need to absolutely praise a game as they do simply omit certain flaws. Then give it the standard 8/8.5 out of 10 and send it to the public.
I doubt that rule applies to everyone but as far as I care most "mainstream reviewers" are on the same level of trustworthiness as Fox News.
OT: I think the most surprising part of this news is that IGN owns those companies, I never knew that. It would seem a little...unethical for a review site to actually own other sites that do game reviews.
Kind of like how Rupert Murdoch buys up all the newspapers.
