If someone bought me a game, paid me to beat it and give it an honest review, I think many of the more extreme forum posters could write a professional review.
Most reviews now see considerable bias, Companies should have 2 people collaborate on a review so that a broader perspective is tackled. E.g. I watched Gametrailers review of InFamous 2, and half of it they talked about how great the mission creator was. I honestly don't care for that, probably won't play it, and wouldn't give the game any extra points for including that, but others might.
I've seen IGN give Killzone 2 a 9.5/10, and Killzone 3 an 8.5 because the game wasn't too different, but playing these games I feel that Killzone 3 is significantly improved over Killzone 2.
Often times I see some games get significantly over-inflated or severly negatively rated reviews because it's the reviewers type of game (e.g. Ghost Recon 1 on Gametrailers is a 9.8/10 game)
Journalists are pretty childish and can be very unfair, I don't see anything special about their reviews except the fact that they record every moment of gameplay.
However to be fair, these guys have to beat a game within a very condensed time-frame, note every issue or good moment they had with a game, and write a moderately well written review about a game, often times before it's released in retail. It can be hard to be fair under strict conditions as many games really need to be enjoyed over time (like Halo, GT, and Mario Kart).
What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database 
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results
