As a lifetime gamer I've allways relied on reviews before I plunk down change on a game I'm unsure about. I fully understand reviews are subjective so my complaint isn't with review scores, it' with a couple strange things I noticed lately when reading my monthly game magazines. I read PTOM, OXM, gamepro, and EGM (when I can find it on store shelves) all fine publications which I've been before people who bought kinectimals were crappin on their hands and rubbing it on their faces.

While I've allways disagreed with review scores from each publication it was only recently that I became suspicious when reading two recent issues. The first was a month or two ago in PTOM. See as in every magazine, generally when a preview is given and allways when a review is given somewhere in the article someone is credited with writing the article. Well in their "reviews" of the brand new move games for the PS3, PTOM gave mostly 6,7,8 scores which seemed a bit strange as the other reviews (reviews on the run, IGN, meta critic), all labeled games like Kungfu Rider and Brunswick Pro Bowling as not merely bad, but garbage.

But I'm not here to complain about scores. I'm wondering why in these reviews published by PTOM, nowhere in the article did it say who was doing each individual review. The only person's name that appears in the entire article are quotes by Richard Marks, Son's senior researcher for Playstation Move tech. So my question is who the hell wrote all of these reviews in issue 038. A bit strange, no?

The other inconsistency I've come across was in OXM's review for Fallout NV. In the review summary, after the 9.5 score, the only minus in their plus/minus list is that the game suffers from a few minor, but non game-breaking glitches. Do I think the review is too high? Nope. It just seemed strange to me that the issue of suffering from non game-breaking glitches was brought up. I don't remember ever reading a review and the reviewer specifically mentioning that there are no game-breaking glitches in the game.

Why do I find it strange this was brought up? Well the fact that Fallout NV does suffer from game breaking glitches. I could only play this game for two weeks after I bought it before, whenever I saved my game and loaded, it mentioned something about dlc not being found. While technically it doesn't make the game unplayable, Fallout NV cannot resonably be played without saving or dying (which would revert back to your last corrupt autosave).

So I'm just confused as to why a reviewer would state there are no game-breaking glitches in a game that does contain game-breaking glitches. I don't want to get all Oliver Stone, but something is rotten at OXM. If anyone knows anything or actually cares about either of these things, fill me in. In the meantime I'll be playing great games like Kungfu Rider and Fallout NV which didn't screw me after 30 hours in the wasteland. Or maybe not.