Is it just me or is anyone else getting more and more fed up with games "review" and YouTube game "reviewers" (people who have mastered the 'art' of acting like a loon on webcam whilst a game is running)? If you look at big game review sites like IGN, Kotaku, Polygon, etc they never seem to dip below a 7/10 for a game. The same goes for most YouTube reviewers; especially those given early access to games. I see it more and more and it makes me wonder what happened to real games journalists? Did they all switch profession when their platform moved from magazines with demo discs to the internet as now it seems that not only are "professional game reviewers" giving reviews that indicate that 70% is the new average, rather than the logical 50%, but barely any of them can even play the games they review. We have reviewers demanding games like Sekiro; Shadows die twice have an easy mode; the co-founder of polygon crying about rage 2 because he was born with a cleft lip (which you can't even see in pictures of him without straining to look) and the mutants in Rage 2 all look like they have a cleft face which was crudely sewn together; leatherface style. (Link below) and in any video of these "professional reviewers" playing a game you can't go 20 seconds without them jump-cutting to another section, suggesting they died/entered a failure state whilst recording and are too embarrassed to show this. These days it's rare to see a game get 5/10 and if it gets lower than 5/10 the game developers most likely did something extremely underhanded, as well as released a terrible game. To take a personal example; Zelda; Breath of the Wild got straight 10s across almost every review platform. It was a great game and brought the Zelda games into a whole new era. However the game did have some seriously repetitive aspects such as it being repetitive (you only need to gather 400 or so korok seeds to unlock all weapon shield and bow slots and pretty much every side quest was a fetch quest) and the soundtrack being not that great, I feel it would deserve a 9. Then when you take some games which are pretty bad, they usually get a 5/10. Do they get 50% for trying? As I said, it's rare to find a game that scores under 5/10 and they usually get pretty infamous for doing so (Day one; Garry's incident being an example). Lots of new games simply have me lose interest half way through, even the Resident Evil 2 remake, which is a brilliant game, though flawed compared to the original, with some zombies taking up to 11 pistol rounds to the head to kill. It got 9s and 10s but it was really deserving of an 8. 80% is still extremely impressive. If we go back two decades and look at the original Half Life from 1998 it got 9.4 from gamespot and 9.5 from IGN. Half-life was a genre defining game with mechanics which are still considered as being ground-breaking and advanced for even today's standards (NPCs and monsters having a sense of smell, for example and commenting on smells from things around them, or creatures eating other creatures by smell rather than sight or sound) yet the game wasn't 100% perfect, so review sites never gave it the 10/10 score. So what's wrong with modern games journalism? Is it as simple as Journalists being handed a bit of cash on the side?