Granted, I don't read "professional" gaming reviews any more, but I think Clear's point isn't that negative reviews are bad, just that the flaws of certain games are overlooked while the flaws of others are overblown. But what more can one expect from subjective ramblings?
Perhaps, a case can be made that the pool of reviewers may be too homogenous in their tastes and their biases towards/against certain types of games may be present?
This, more than people griping about 'fanboys', is probably what's really wrong.
There are PLENTY of games that get ripped on. There's plenty of criticism going around in the gaming press.
The problem is that there isn't enough variety in opinions, and this leads writers and reviewers to nearly uniformly give certain games a 'pass' for particular negatives, while almost uniformly roasting other games for details that are either:
1. An actual negative point, but may be over-exaggerated.
2. Something that isn't a negative attribute but is currently 'unfashionable'.
Example: around 2004, I noticed a distinct trend in game reviews to venerate orchestrated and licensed music while mocking 'game bleeps'. By game bleeps, reviewers meant anything like traditional game-specific soundtracks or music. Whether or not they were actually chip tunes in style. At that time, everyone was riding on a high of the PS2 and big budget games that were either using generic symphonic music that westerners would recognize from motion pictures, or shoving trendy licensed pop and rock tracks into the game. This, in the view of a lot of reviewers 'legitimized' games and was 'progressive'. So games with unabashedly gamey-music were simply demerited for their 'uncool' and 'lame' choice in music.
Fast foward to today and it's all hip and shit to be down with Dat 8-Bit Swag (even if 8-bit is often a misnomer). Now you find celebrations in the popular press, almost to the last man, of games that get in on the trend of employing 'retro' soundtracks. Now it is hailed as a celebration of the 'culture of video games' and whatnot. Now, while I do like chip tunes, this just an example of how reviewers and the press often seem to ebb and flow in monoblocks of critical standards.
Thus, if a game that is full of things to criticize hits a few key points that currently earn near universal praise, odds are a lot higher than any negatives in the game will be glossed over or downplayed. Regardless of whether or not they're actually minor negatives. If a game does not appeal to the current groupthink, then it has a much higher chance of either A: earning a diversity of opinions or B: being set upon by most critics for failing to pander to what is presently popular.
A side issue here is that the expectations of the audience, the gamers, is pretty warped too. Too many people seem to think a game is either "all awesome" or "a pile of crap!" Therefore, they hang on the number given out by a review, to determine absolutely whether a game is good or bad. 8 and above,
it must be awesome and I'm sure to love it. 7 or below, and
ha ha this must be crap and anyone I see playing it is an idiot who doesn't know what good games are.
Some people are griping that you can't go into an OT on a place like gaf without being attacked by 'fanboys' but I don't think this is generally true. A place like this is still a far better alternative to getting real discussion about games, but some don't seem to like it when they come in to say
"this game is complete shit because of this one part I hate!" and someone else says
"yeah, that part isn't its strength, but I love the rest of it". Or when they claim that X feature is completely broken and doesn't work, and other people say it works for them. I mean, we have people who literally call others
liars if they claim they enjoy a certain aspect of a game.