Just listened to the reviewer on a podcast a few minutes ago, he seems very genuine. 

lmao...wut?

Oh, c'mon. Sony had a much worse image years ago than they have today. Now they don't make cheap-shots at the competition or say things like: PLAYSTATION 3 [sic] is not the future of computer game entertainment. It's the future of entertainment. Period.

I know, boring!!

Go to the review itself. On the IGN page. The only time theyve ever done that for a game, ever. See where theyre also telling you to buy the other games. See where they have that IGN woman actually in the game itself (more time spent on her than Tali). The IGN ME3 review stinks of corruption.

As if only Sony would act like this.

That is how the world works, if you want money, you don't piss off your customers.

I have to say even though I think games journalism is an utter joke it seems some people are reading this article and coming to the opposite conclusion of what it says.

The tone of the article is basically that many companies try and force high reviews but that in the cases listed it didn't work. I'm not sure people understand how the sites work. There are different departments and the pressure form companies will be put on one department, then that department will try and put pressure on another. However clearly it doesn't always work.

The Kane and Lynch review wasn't very positive despite the pressure. Likewise Sony trying to force high reviews clearly didn't work as R+C got 7.5, not the near perfect score they wanted.

However there are definitely some ridiculous cases. IGN's Mass Effect 3 review I think is pretty fair listing negatives and positives. Even though they gave a score the game (I feel) deserves it doesn't change the fact that having one of your employees in the game is a joke. They should have told her she was unallowed to take the offer. That's even ignoring the fact it's a person who got a job in games journalism by licking a freaking psp -_- oh the high standards. Or that someone with no voice acting history or even acting history performs some of the worst voice acting ever and replaces a character that actually had an interesting history with Shepherd.

Likewise there is a huge problem with giving reviews to people who simply shouldn't have a job in the industry. For example Greg Miller at ign. A self confessed Playstation fanboy. He gets a review for Uncharted 3 and gives it.... a perfect 10 in literally every single category....come on now, literally perfect in every single way and apparently the best lasting appeal of any game ever made. A two page review that doesn't mention a single negative and reads like a joke. They then give this same person a timed 360 exclusive to review.... Is that a good idea? Seemingly not as he gives it a 4.5 and the entire review barely contains a single positive OH! and features references to a Uncharted.... hmmm

So many other examples. I remember when Gamespot reviewed sacred 2 and the developers came out and pointed out that their account had only played the game for a few hours. Or the review they put up for Metroid Prime Hunters where there were mistakes that showed the reviewer hadn't even really played the game.

Joystiq's ''review'' of Nier where Justin gave the game a zero and refused to review it. Why you might ask? Because he said a quest was impossible and the game design sucked. He had to catch a fish and it was impossible after hours of trying. Then vast amounts of people pointed that the entire time in the video he put up there was a HUGE red X on the map, that through the entire game had been used to mark where you need to go for quests. Can you figure out what was wrong? He was in the total wrong place and had ignored the quest marker. However he said that didn't count and because the fishing spot was near to where he got the quest that it made more sense to fish there than where the freaking quest marker was........ *sigh*

Thats why you should always play it before you judge it based on site reviews. Rent it before you buy it to be safe...

I really hate this conspiracy theory, and I full-on despise that video for cherrypicking, asserting and generally trying to mislead people in any way possible.

Companies do not buy reviews. It does not happen. Do they:

• Want you to give it a high score? Yes.
• Give you a review copy so you like the game more? Yes.
• Set score-based embargoes? Yes.

Do they offer money or threaten to take away review copies because you give a game a bad review score? No. Never. If word of that got out, it would be the destruction of that company's image. Especially in the latter case, the moment you threaten to take away a copy, that publication is going to write about it and it is a PR disaster. It's far too risky and it just isn't done.

The reason a reviewer likes a game more than the general public in most cases is that the reviewer has been chosen because he was excited for the game and a fan of the genre/series. Of course he is going to like it.

Japanese games get low scores because they don't cater to Western tastes. The majority of Western gamers don't want to buy Atelier Rorona, because they have no interest in it. If you are into Japanese culture, you like it. Most reviewers aren't.

I am genuinely interested: do you think gamrReview determines scores based on advertising? I honestly have no idea who is advertising with us; I have never received any notice that I should be generous to a game; no money has ever got through to any of us for the purpose of inflating review scores.

I've read the review, I saw the new format. Could it not be that they used that format on Mass Effect 3 as it's a pretty big game, will get many hits which will mean more feedback? That makes a hell of a lot more sense to me, and that's what a few other editors talked about (not the reviewer), and mentioned doing it for other major games aswell. Someone recommending buying the other games has a lot to do with the fact that stories are tied together in the deepest way possible and less to do with a corrupt reviewer. I've seen plenty of people say this. Jessica Chobot doesn't only work for IGN, she also works for G4, G4 gave it 5/5, are they currupt aswell? She's a fairly big name in gaming and heavily involved in the industry, her doing some voice work isn't anything unusually out of the ordinary. 

Also, many people didn't even have a problem with the ME3 ending, many enjoyed it. Is it so hard to believe that the reviewer just happens to be one of the many who didn't have a problem with the ending? I mean fuck dude, the games Metacritic is on 94, he gave it 95 (9.5), that's 1/100 off the average score. 

I've also been listening to the guy for quite a while now, he loves the series, it's clear that he loved ME3 at preview events and it's clear that he genuinely loves the game. if he's been faking everything he's said about that series for over 50 episodes of a podcast, he deserves an oscar. 

Here's a relevant video featuring the reviewer: http://uk.ign.com/videos/2012/03/12/mass-effect-3-opinion-video 

I have (and many others here) have always said that many reviews and rating scores are "bought".
I don't believe for a second that Sony is the only one that does this.

I am not saying that every single reviewer is on the take, but come on. It's not rocket science.
I have spent a small fortune on and been let down so many times in the past by "five star" games that I don't bother with buying games on the release date anymore, nor do I bother with reading the "official" reviews anymore.

I let you guys buy it and review it. If the sensible and non-bias among you says it's a good game - arguing over the pros and cons (as you always do), and basing that on what I am looking for in the game, I'll buy it within a couple days. You have never let me down.