No, but they should be.

Let's look at GameSpot, the backstabbing weasels. They gave Tools of Destruction a 7.5, and suddenly they get extreme amounts of hate.

They shouldn't inflate their scores because of fanboys, but they should know that giving a great game a bad score is not a good idea.

GTA4 got the reviews it did because it was Grand Theft Auto. They reviewers had maybe two days to play it before reviewing it. They couldn't see the flaws. All they knew was that it was the first GTA in four years. That, and there was probably a fair bit of moneyhatting.

Halo 3 actually deserved that score, I think. It certainly didn't deserve the 10/10 ratings all of those fanboy reviewers were giving it (see, it's the reviewers that are fanboys", but it was still a great game, even if they changed pretty much nothing.

Some may be afraid because they pay the bills, I'm unsure. But if other reviewers are like myself then fanboys are annoying over anything else. You get used to the idea that no matter what you write someone will always bitch about it, which is unfortunate after putting hours of work into writing the thing that someone will come along, read the scores at the end, and then accuse you of not even playing the game in question.

Those are just my own experiences though, most reviewers probably don't even bother with reading the comments to them, at least on larger sites I would presume they don't.

There was also Game Informer's treatment of Paper Mario TTYD. They liked it enough to consider giving the game a 9, but they assumed the "hardcore" would dismiss it as a silly kid's game, so they gave it a 6.

For the big player developers, and reviewers like gamespot as far as i knew the devs pay the reviewers to give them high scores, i.e. developer gives a website/magazine an early scoop on the game on the terms that they wont score it less than x/10.

There was some fisaco at gamespot not long back because a guy working there refused to give kane & lynch more than 6/10, obviously some agreement had been signed before hand so the guy was fired.

They actually thought a bunch of schmucks on the web was enough to listen to?

If they didn't have Gamestop to ensure their availability, how well would they be doing?

Yes i should qualify that story, i believe they were advertising the game down either side panel, hence the 'dispute', but it does make business sense, when you consider the possibility that both games developers & reviewers dont give a toss about the people buying the product (99.9% of the time would be my guess), then it is easy to see how these misrepresentations can take place.

Yeah I remember the days of old when EGM had companies threatening to pull ads due to some bad game reviews. At the time John Davidson stood up to them saying something to the tune of "sure, I'll stop giving your games low scores, as soon as you stop making crappy, unplayable games". His editors backed him up too. As the years went on it didn't seem like that was the situation any longer. Sad, but money talks.

Absolutely their terrified. Fanboys are the people who provide the most hits to the site. Every "news item" is littered with fanboy rage in the comments section.

It's not just early scoops reviewers get, it's also cushy treatment for themselves and their partners when they go to preview a game.

Have you even played either of the two games you mentioned? I'm sure most who have would notice a marked difference in quality when compared to any FF game (for their time).

Although, I'm sure you're right in some cases and that some would actually rate it higher based on the name, most wouldn't, as evidenced by people, reviewers included, having no trouble blasting Mystic Quest when it came out.

User scores also oppose your hypothesis on just about any site you can find.