I've been thinking about this for quite some time, mostly when I am about to buy a game.
It's become more obvious over the years that some sites that review games are "bought", meaning that they get promotional money or whatever to give crappy games by big companys high ratings to get people to buy them.

One example is Rome II total war. It got praised by many reviewing sites and such but the people who bought it thought it sucked badly (I have'nt played it, but I've played the earlier games in the series). It becomes obvious when you look at Metacritic or see reviews on youtube, Angry Joe reviews the game and goes into detail about the flaws. Company of heroes 2 comes to mind also.

Few sites offer fair and customer friendly reviews, I think gog has a good system but it has some flaws. Every game here gets a relatively high rating and that tricks people that don't read the reviews below, not just the three you see. Most of the games here are good anyway and it's people who review the games and not someone who does it for money. Metacritic is pretty good, you can see when a game actually sucks but you don't always get good reviews of it so you know what sucks.

When I was younger I looked on Gamespot everytime I was thinking of buying a game but after a while it became clear that they gave bigger games better scores.

I have a few questions, I think someone here might have some knowledge about this sort of thing.

1) How are some sites "bought"?
Maybe It's obvious I don't know, money under the table or something.

2) Do you know any sites which gives fair and honest reviews for the customers?
I like Gamebanshees reviews. They don't gives stars or whatever, they just tell you if it is worth buying. I already mentioned Angry Joe and Metacritic. There are some more that I know of.

3) Should'nt it be illegal to con people into buying faulty or bad games?
I think it damages the game industry when people get tricked into buying games that sucks or don't give what they promise. It should be illegal, I don't know why it is'nt.

Thanks for any replies!

My understanding is that reviews are bought by giving reviews exclusives and review materials. If you don't have a good relationship with the publisher (which means giving good reviews), you will not get preview copies, you will not get invited to events about the games, etc.

In fact, some of the reason the reviews are better than you'd expect isn't because the reviewer is consciously trying to make it better than it is, but because the reviews has previous information about the game, has been told what to look for that the publisher thinks makes the game better, has seen the game previously and perhaps been given a chance to play through it. This familiarity affects the perception of the reviewer.

I don't think that Angry Joe is necessarily a better judge of games. I've seen him go on about a few games where I thought he was just a disappointed fanboy, and I know that for some games that's what most user reviews are (take for example Final Fantasy reviews).

"Cooperative" sites just get treated better, they get review copies earlier, exclusive content and stuff. The critical ones have to wait till release day to buy it and come out with the review later.

Its kind of similar to politics and news media really.

Interesting! Yeah, I totally agree with you that many people are "fanboys" or just love crappy games. People have different tastes as well.
About Angry Joe, I'm not a big fan or anything I just thought he gave his perspective and not some other one. No site or person will like the same games as you. I just wish that the biggest names and the flashiest reviews would be somewhat honest. The politics part I can agree with, I guess it's part of their jobs. Our tv-news are actually quite honest and good here in Sweden, although our papers will do anything to sell.

Some sites are afraid of offending fanbois, hence some unbelievable high scores for games, take The Last of Us as a recent example, it got 10/10, yet the AI is totally bonkers in the stealth sections. I'm sure its a pretty excellent game, but surely 10/10 should be a flawless game.

So, yeah, whether purchased scores or pandering to fanbois, In the end, I reckon its best to pull your reviews from a number of different sources and try and figure out an average score for yourself.

Do remember that publishers also buy advertising space on gaming websites. Of course the websites are in it for the money, but giving a shit review afterwards might have repercussions nevertheless.

Of course not. I don't understand, why everybody always cites "Angry Joe". He is just a gamer, maybe fanboy, who made a business and earns his money with complaining about video games. He is always "angry", thats why people watch his videos and he earns money. Nobody would give a shit about a "Fair and balanced Joe"....

1) As others have said, it's a matter of survival. If you don't play ball, then the publishers simply won't give you the reviews. There were some pretty clear cut cases in the release of Duke Nukem Forever link.

2) Even Metacritic, which had a pretty good shot at getting past this problem, has been neutratlised by just spamming positive reviews. Dragon Age 2 was guilty of this, the devs were reported as posting reviews of their own game. It's too big an industry to be able to have a long running site that doesn't get corrupted. Instead I'd suggest forums such as this as a place for your reviews. Most forums have discussions on any major releases, so just read what the poor saps that bought it on day 1 actually think.

3) No, you shouldn't try to leglislate the internet. All attempts have failed, and this is a really minor "crime" in comparison to what else goes on. In fact this is just free speach at its worst. People have a right to be corporate shills, to deceive you, and to make money from it.

Ha, I would like that Joe better. I have only seen his review of Rome II and one that I did'nt agree with and thought was bad and that was his review of Skyrim. But even he is better then Gamespot or IGN. Yeah you're right. Now I'm wiser and almost always buy good games thanks to my disbelief in the system and thorough research before i buy.

I just don't understand why it must be like this.

I think scores are worse than useless and are only loosely based on the review. You have to read what the reviewer actually said and preferably read reviews from people with similar tastes to you. Often the difference between reviews is just how much emphasis they put on the different parts of the game. "Top" review sites do often seem to downplay the negatives though.

However I personally have become very jaded with even release day reviews. I wait awhile before buying games so I can see what people really think.

Eurogamer used to be OK. Giant Bomb & Rocket Paper Shotgun (Total Biscuit WTF first impressions are pretty spot on as well) are the two sites i remember of the top of my head which are fair and honest with their reviews (although to be frank, reviewers do spout on and waffle in lots of reviews before they get to the meat and potatoes so to say - i hate waffle!!)

Remember Ladies and Gentlemen, we need to tread this topic carefully. We can't just calling every reviews "bought" because you disagree with them. Remember that taste pretty much differ for each person.

For example let us see at Gran Turismo 5 review. It's a pretty polarizing game. It create a lot of good and bad reviews and people find it pretty difficult to find an agreement with that game. Some people will praise the racing courses and the realism while others will criticize the premium and standard cars.

Other example was when Polygon review Last of Us and gave it a 7 out of 10(while other sites gave it almost perfect/perfect scores). Boy the comment section was like a battlefield. Some accuse Polygon for being too nitpicky. While others think that Polygon was paid by Microsoft.

In conclusion, be wise, be savvy. You don't need to go and raging at review sites just because you felt scammed by them. You have to make sure the game is actually fit with your taste. By a good and long research.

Or go download the demo.

I don't think there is any need to "tread carefully", I just assume they are all bought unless I see anything to think otherwise.

Then what's the point for you to read the reviews if you think they are all bought then? Just ignore them and do your own research.

Because every good witch burning needs a torch - why care about crazy stuff like facts or different opinions?