So this is why game sites praise games more than I do

Sometimes I worry that my lukewarm reviews of highly praised games are an indication that I'm just too picky, so I was pleased to read this post about a Gamespy review that was altered by the editor. The game gained a star and a half in the rating over the reviewer's original review and some of the language was changed. Gamespy's argument is that the editors felt the review was unreasonably harsh and that since it contradicted their previous laudatory previews and disagreed with their review of the first Donkey Konga game even though they are essentially the same, that it made sense to alter the review to keep it in line with their general editorial attitude.

So basically, Gamespy as a corporation decides whether a game is valuable rather than leaving it up to some erratic individual who might actually have the temerity to disagree with the editors. And if that is common then it explains a lot about the lockstep critical attitude one finds in reviews of high profile games.

Fortunately, I don't think my editors even play videogames, so I get to form my opinions without help from above.