Wow, some people will believe anything. I wonder how much drugs you have to do to fall for something like this. 
In theory I suppose it makes a degree of sense. As unpopular as they may be things like Sociology and Psychology work under similar principles and are perfectly sound and functional even if the results are often too politically contreversial in many cases to use to any real benefit (ie changes to long term behaviors and such on a massive scale generally aren't going to happen even if someone predicts 'if this continues, this will happen' correctly. No politician has the guts to run out with a punkhammer to force massive change either, risking becoming a tyrant in the process).
In practice however your dealing with a fundementally corrupt industry where there is generally only one variable: Money.
This was proven by the whole Kane and Lynch fiasco. Basically a game that buys a lot of advertising is NOT going to be reviewed poorly by the critics working for those advertising sources. You also have things like the recent "Arkham Asylum" fiasco, where despite it being a big game, it was made pretty obvious that by giving it a high review publications could jump the date for reviews and talk about the game early and probably sell more issues as a result.
Then there is the entire Grand Theft Auto IV thing, that game got a 10 despite the fact that VERY few people felt it was worthy of a "perfect" score especially given numerous, obvious flaws that cut down on the enjoyment of the game for pretty much everyone. The whole thing with your fat cousin Roman calling you every 15 minutes (along with your other buddies) has become something of a universal gaming joke. With something that annoying and poorly implemented in the game there is no way it should have ever become "perfect".
On the other hand Microsoft paid Rockstar big bucks for exclusive content, and some of those bucks doubtlessly went towards "cooking the books" with reviewers.
Generally speaking your not going to really be able to predict scores based on any kind of analysis of game trends, and comparison. Money and industry corruption is going to always be a factor and there is no way to universally tell who is doing what.
I could make a total piece of liscence cr@p but if I toss a million dollars to Game Informer, I'd be bloody surprised if they didn't give me a '10' claiming that my game is the most polished and revolutionary thing ever.
In theory I suppose it makes a degree of sense. As unpopular as they may be things like Sociology and Psychology work under similar principles and are perfectly sound and functional even if the results are often too politically contreversial in many cases to use to any real benefit (ie changes to long term behaviors and such on a massive scale generally aren't going to happen even if someone predicts 'if this continues, this will happen' correctly. No politician has the guts to run out with a punkhammer to force massive change either, risking becoming a tyrant in the process).
In practice however your dealing with a fundementally corrupt industry where there is generally only one variable: Money.
This was proven by the whole Kane and Lynch fiasco. Basically a game that buys a lot of advertising is NOT going to be reviewed poorly by the critics working for those advertising sources. You also have things like the recent "Arkham Asylum" fiasco, where despite it being a big game, it was made pretty obvious that by giving it a high review publications could jump the date for reviews and talk about the game early and probably sell more issues as a result.
Then there is the entire Grand Theft Auto IV thing, that game got a 10 despite the fact that VERY few people felt it was worthy of a "perfect" score especially given numerous, obvious flaws that cut down on the enjoyment of the game for pretty much everyone. The whole thing with your fat cousin Roman calling you every 15 minutes (along with your other buddies) has become something of a universal gaming joke. With something that annoying and poorly implemented in the game there is no way it should have ever become "perfect".
On the other hand Microsoft paid Rockstar big bucks for exclusive content, and some of those bucks doubtlessly went towards "cooking the books" with reviewers.
Generally speaking your not going to really be able to predict scores based on any kind of analysis of game trends, and comparison. Money and industry corruption is going to always be a factor and there is no way to universally tell who is doing what.
I could make a total piece of liscence cr@p but if I toss a million dollars to Game Informer, I'd be bloody surprised if they didn't give me a '10' claiming that my game is the most polished and revolutionary thing ever.
