The issue is that companies paying extravagant and lavish shit for reviewers (or journalists) creates a Conflict of Interest.
Much the same way that companies paying game magazines/sites for adverts, creates conflict of interest (see Kain and Lynch iirc).
Maelstrom has a problem with these reviewers/journalists downplaying an obvious luxurious and extravagant thing as something reviewers/journalists 'hate'.
Perhaps Maelstrom didnt quote the article enough.
"The practice of making the reviewer go to the game, at a review event, rather than send that game to the reviewer, has raised ethical concerns that such events influence the opinions of the reviewers who take part. Some say the events make it difficult to form an impartial critical opinion of a game under such circumstances. Whether through direct interference or as a byproduct of being catered to with travel, accommodation and the free gifts commonly given at such events, allegations that reviews are "bought and sold" at events paid for by publishers can tarnish the credibility of a review at best, mar the reputation of a publication or video game at worst."
-http://kotaku.com/5416788/reviewing-a-game-on-their-terms-the-increasingly-prominent-review-event
I take a hard stance against these things too, they say it is helpful because they can point out the good stuff in their game.
But thats clearly stupid, and no reviewer should support something like that, it is not the business of reviewers to let themselves be influenced to think more highly of a game by its publisher, it is the business of a reviewer to play the game as a normal customer would, and evaluate whether its good (therefore AWAY from company reps).
