here is the problem. and it is just not a problem with gaming journalism. it has affected even professional journalism. un-baised truth is what people want. if a game has a ton of bugs, then say so. if the game is a copy of the previous game, say so. if the game does not advance the genre, say so. if the game is remarkably mediocre, then it should get a mediocre score. if a game takes no risks and instead is just a copy of every other game in the genre, say so. the problem is, these "professional" journalists kow-tow to the publishers or developers because they think they have to for pre-evaluation copies and such. or agreements to hold their less than stellar reviews until after the game is out and all the people who did day one or even week one purchasing have done so and everyone knows its a shitty game. and i dont give a crap how many copies of a game sells. there is a saying people forget. "trillions of flies eat shit every day, why arent you?" first time i played a COD game, it was fun. i enjoyed it for a while. then i played another one. it was the same as the first one. then i played a third one. it was the same as the first one. i dont play them anymore.