It's funny how a lot of complaints over game reviewers has turned up this generation.  When really reviewing has been in decline for at least 4 years already.  However why are people getting angry and is their some truth to their complaints.  Well let's go over why reviewing is going downhill.

First and foremost this is not 100% fact cause I do not know what goes on in these reviewers' heads.  I merely have a well thoughtout reason.  Now, one of the main reasons people have problems with reviewers nowadays, is they feel there is way too much intervention involved in the process.  Things like paying for better reviews have been mentioned numerous times.  Facts of the matter is, it's highly unlikely that many review sites are paid to give better reviews.  However it is likely that when devs will make agreements with reviewing sites to give them exclusives on some of their games or that game in return for a more lenient review.  This is something that is more likely to happen.  Not as dirty but still continues the downward spiral of professionalism.  

Another problem I see, which is the main one, is the domination of hardcore reviewers that think, well too much like a hardcore gamer in it for themselves.  Too much personal bias involved.  Most of these reviewers seem to have set rules for how certain games will be reviewed.  First and foremost games that are part of a popular, critically acclaimed series must, and always will be, reviewed highly.  Games like Zelda, Mario, and GTA will get the high reviews AS LONG AS they stick to the roots of the games.  Now if the game drifts too far away, or tries to take the series in another direction, you'll see these reviewers shoot the game down.  It's almost like these reviewers don't want to see risks taken with the game.  Just want the same old thing over and over again.  And anyone who tries to revolutionize the series is quickly shot down hurting sales.  

Recently one reviewer tried to challenge this.  Might remember the Zelda: TP review at Gamespot.  He gave it an 8.8 and people freaked out, me being one of them.  But upon thinking about it, did Zelda: TP really deserve those scores, or was some of the things he was ranting on right.  Well we are both right and wrong.  His score and cons were harsh and some of the scores Zelda: TP got were too high.  But at least he challenged it.  Yet after this challenging a big name game like that is just ludacris.  No one was going to challenge Super Mario Galaxy, and no way in hell was anyone going to challenge GTA IV, a game that did not deserve the review scores it got.  Once again furthing the lack of proffesionalism for self biases and appearances.  

Now continuing on that we are also seeing something else.  Reviewers are just afraid to review a new IP well unless it has something drastically different.  Lair and Haze aren't 50% rating games.  They are more 70% at least, but because they weren't drastically different from other things, they are reviewed worse.  This hardcore reviewing community continues to discredit them, yet if a well known series does the same it'll get higher reviews.  Now new IP's like Zack and Wiki, Boom Blox, Viva Pinata, ect will get good reviews despite being a new IP cause for their time they are something unseen before.  

Now maybe I"m the only one noticing this, but this is a very disturbing trend to me.  I'm tired of seeing game reviews be more about what the game is in name or what it isn't in brand, than really just a reviewer sitting down, playing the game, and giving an honest score.  I don't care how big GTA or Mario or Zelda is, if the game is not perfect score worthy then don't give it to it.  And on the flip side if a new IP is a good game, but may be run of the mill, that is no reason to shoot it down.  You rate games how they are when you play it.  Now how they are compared to anything else.  If a game is bad, rate it bad.  If a game is good rate it well.  A simple concept that corruption, bias, and money is continously destroying in this industry like it has in every other entertainment industry.

i agree on alot of your ponts,i do think reviewers do some exclusivity with some sites/mags and they give em better scores,but in some cases also try to pay em off(we all remember what happened after gamesots review of kane and lynch).

also in some cases a reviewer gives a sequel a good score for being the same like its predecessor,but then gives another sequel a lower score for being the same.You shouldnt review it based on wether its the same or not(well being completely the same isnt very good)but you souldnt give extra points to some and lower to some.

And you are also right on the IP's,they dock points from them if it sint completely new,if the game is fun give it a good score,if its not dont give it a good score

Exactly. I mean and that thought isn't fullproof. I mean MGS4 is getting hit harder than expected and it's alot like its own series.

But I jsut want reviewers to take into account that every game is it's own, and not some number or stereotype. Just review it for what its worth instead of what it is in the market or compared to another game. Surprisingly enough people like us on these forums have become better at telling people what games are good and what isn't than people who are paid to do it.

I'm glad you made this thread as there's a shocking lack of review-related threads and someone needs to say something about this atrocious trend.

Unfortunately this thread appears to completely miss the point of what a review is, determining whether a game is worth playing or not. The review system still does this. Was GTA IV, SMG and Zelda worth playing? Yeah they were. Are the likes of Haze and Lair worth playing? Not particularly. The review system is mostly do it's job reasonally well, even if it isn't perfect. One can complain all they want about the system, desiring things from it that it was never intended to handle but at the end of the day it does a more than reasonable job of determining whether a game is worth playing or not - and this is reinforced when one bothers to read reviews rather than becoming fixated with numerical values.

well the reviews do help point out which game is worth buying and which isnt.

But GTA4 got so many perfect reviews,i dont think any game is perfect,just like reviewers arent.

and they also rate games compared to others(noted by zucas)which i think you should just review it wether its fun or not,tell its pros and cons,not to review it and say well its to different from this game,so we should lower some points

That would be true if reviews only meant sales. But unfortunately it means, like in every entertainment industry, respect and adoration. And how are you supposed to know who deserves it when reviews are corrupted to the point of focusing only on sales. That is my point. Although yours is a good one, reviewing isn't just about whether its a pickup or a pass up. It's about so much more in this industry and that's something neither your or I could change. But given that it is about that, I want the proffesionalism to be at its maximum, especially if they are getting paid to pretty much decide those things. If not then someone else should do it.

You have to compare games to others in the genre when reviewing them to keep scores consistent. Similarly, if a game isn't up to the standard of past entries in the series, it shouldn't be scored as highly.

That's what they're there for after all, to tell you which product you should buy. How can they do that without taking competing products into consideration?

Of course reviews have to be somewhat comparative. But I'm talking moreso about comparing it not necessarily to those in its genres, but to more of a brand so to speak. Becuase it's not htis brand or it is this brand will determine the score. That's the point I was trying to get out.