Are you kidding me?  How is this a MEME?  First of all, it's not "video game reviewers don't got anything on me heh," or whatever you're playing it up to be, it's "video game reviewers are clearly biased in a very obvious way and their editors probably have agendas and apply a pretty heavy hand to what types of reviews they put out."  Not everyone's as guilty of it as the worst ones are, but for magazines, it's absolutely true.  I don't even know how you can stand here and act like this is some wild, overrated conspiracy that couldn't possibly exist or something.  If most of your revenue comes from advertising, and your reviews often have a large effect on the amount of money your advertisers make, guess what you're NOT going to do?  I don't think it's too hard of a guess.  These publications exist, first and foremost, to make a profit, so above all else, it's in their best interest to appease the advertisers, and it's not too much of a stretch to say that they almost certainly don't do this by giving brutally honest reviews and costing advertisers millions of dollars.  It's just mutually beneficial to give even the bad games pretty solid reviews; the advertisers make money, and in turn you make money.  Plus, the consumer will trick himself into thinking that Tales of Symphonia is actually a good game.  It's a triple win!

But from whom would the Internet demand vindication?  This happens everywhere; it's completely universal.  You can't just go to one source and say THIS IS DISGUSTING, STOP IT, because I'm sure the vast majority of all publications, online or off, that have a substantial amount of advertisers end up doing this to some extent (probably a pretty large one).  I think you'd have to be pretty naive to legitimately think that MONEY doesn't play a very large factor.

i agree with him in that no one should really be reading reviews as a reliable source of information about games, considering most are terrible and the large majority of gamers everywhere have ridiculous tastes and don't know what they're talking about most of the time.  BBBBUUTTT, given the context of my post, replying with "heh.... true objectivity... is as fleeting and elusive as a summer breeze...." wasn't really appropriate, because i'm pretty sure he knew what the hell i was talking about.  as in, not COMPLETELY 100% OBJECTIVE, but more like reasonably objective/reviews coming from someone without a clear agenda that relates to money.  is this more clear macus???

I'm sorry man but I guess we just disagree.