Just stopping by to let you know that - contrary to popular believes - awards doesn't necessarily mean something has to be good or perfect or whatever word you want to use. Especially not if votes can easily be influenced or bought.
Like do you really think this is something that's not happening in the gaming industry?
Then why do developers exclude specific gaming news pages or YouTube channels from sending codes to review the game if they have negatively criticized a game of said developer before?
Why are there people being ignorant to any obvious mistakes and refrain from writing about the flaws others talk about just to come up with a perfect score?
Or in this case, as an example: Why do I see some of the faces I know are writing ONLY positive things about this game being invited to the last PFH sitting in the front rows? Applauding everything that happens there?
Yeah, all of this is just their own opinion and I bet they never have been influenced by anything. Just like any winner of a casting show was purely picked based on the viewers votes and not because of marketing reasons.
Let's be honest: If you have a game that got hyped (deserved or not), you want to keep the hype up to write hundreds of small news and articles about said game to attract people to read it as that leads to ad revenue.
And beside that:
If there are so many bad critics like you claim, how come many people still debate and talk and reply? Or is it just everyone is lazy but you?
