There has been a lot of controversy and rumour lately about how such clearly awful games that are released in totally unfinished states can get so many high review scores from around the net. I mentioned it myself when reviewing Battlefield Vietnam.

What do you think? Do publishers bribe review sites? Do review sites promise high scores in return for exclusive content and other such potential revenue streams?

I love a good conspiracy theory, so my view has to be yes.

There's an excellent article at gamesindusty.biz by Rob Fahey, discussing Atari's recently released 'Driv3r' and the widely varying review scores it has received around the internet.

Accusations of review scores being "sold" in return for advertising and other such incentives have flown back and forth, publications have been forced to admit to reviewing from incomplete code and taking Atari's word that bugs would be fixed

DRIV3R CONTROVERSY RAISES QUESTIONS FOR GAMES MEDIA

Quite simple, I trust very few review sites these days, I've bought too many bad, unfinished games on the strength of quite frankly biased reviews, written by either over zealous or un-scrupulous web masters or maybe even just people who haven't got a clue.

Bottom line is simple, don't trust overly high scores or overly positive reviews. Not unless you trust the reviewer.