http://gameinformer.com/games/silent_hill_shattered_memories/b/wii/archive/2009/12/08/review.aspx

"Graphics:The worst shadow effects I’ve ever seen detract from an already rough-looking game"

Quite possibly the most asinine thing I've ever seen said about any game ever, wait, no, I take that back there is ONE thing worse. (look at Smash Bros N64 metacritic if you want to know about that)  But honestly... how do they think they can get away with that and still call themselves professonals...

They make a number of other comments, honestly they don't need the hits, don't click the link, this rubbish doesn't deserve it, but I thought they hit a low with their CoD MWR review but they took one of the best looking Wii games, panned it for things that really aren't the issues with the game (there are a few but still an excellent game, and honestly if it was a 6.5 for THOSE reasons I would be fine with the review)

They also complain about the controls (which can be loose for some I could understand that but they call it clumsy which it's NOT) and then say it has mediocre exploration which... really isn't even apart of the game... like you don't explore, you've got a few small areas you can look around, find little trinkets, but you don't explore... how can that be an issue?  This game has quite possibly some of the best puzzles in recent memory, which doesn't even get a nod in the review. 

I might go through and disect the review for you guys later, as it is laughably bad, and REALLY off base, but I'll leave it alone for now.

Well although I agree the integrity of GI isn't that high, there does seem to be a lot of "mixed" opinions going around about that of Silent Hill: Shattered Memories so this might just be a title you have to play for yourself to figure out. For me? Won't be getting it til tomorrow. Got my last final tomorrow haha.

Not much point in condemning, anymore. Nowadays I either laugh at reviews like this if they're funny or just shake my head and walk away if they're not.

honestly, most of the reviews have been pretty rough for the game. Some of which give decent reasons. For instance, there is a distinction between exploring and "chase scenes." while exploring you are completely safe, but this is also where all of the scary scenes happen which lose impact since nothing can harm you. Chase scenes are just you running. And apparently the puzzles are not very complicated with keys to locked doors sometimes being right beside the door or they explicitly state where the key is.

I got to ask, since the magazine is largely tied to Gamestop, is there a relative connection between review scores and how often a game is turned in used?

I did a mixture of both, mostly because they're serious and I simply couldn't believe it.  It's frustrating being a gamer and this is the trash thats seen from reviewers that are supposed to be professonals and judging a games merits and critiquing the flaws, but it's slowly boiled down to neaderthals that wouldn't know picaso from a 3 year old drawing a stick figure family, going DUR DUR DUR THIS GAME HAS FLASHY ME LIKE, DUR DUR DUR THIS GAME SUCKS I WANT IT ON MY CONSOLE DUR.  It's rather sickening being someone who views video games as an artform on level with music, movies, paintings, etc.

No but they did post a rather damning article last issue showing stats between being a cover story and getting good reviews, they showed their average for the cover games which was 11 points higher than the industries average for the exact same games, so it might have more to do with who pays them for ad space.

Not just tied to Gamestop,They OWN and publish the magazine.

They got all control over it when they bought Funcoland

Not officially, but there's an admitted link between review scores and hype.

http://www.jivemagazine.com/column.php?pid=2589

In the interest of full disclosure, the link also contains a later clarification which does wonders to further muddy matters.

Some reviews are just plain rubbish. Read Destructoid's Assassin's Creed II review if you think this is a Wii only thing.