A lot has been said over the last year or so about the reliability of game reviews. Are they 'bought and paid for' by game publishers? SoreThumbs bloggers, Crispin & Shoe, have posted a letter from "Anonymous Guy from Big Publisher" that sheds some light on the topic.

Here are some of the more salient points:

• Right off the bat, it needs to be remembered that most serious games are projects that have involved dozens, if not hundreds of people for years (not talking about the licensed crap). The developer, in most cases, kills itself to get a game completed. Any good PR people working for a game publisher understand what a developer goes through, and should fight hard to get the game looked at by journalists fairly.
• Lets say you have a game that takes 30 hours to complete, and reviewer plays 2 hours of it and gives it mediocre review based on the first few levels, just because he has 10 other games to review and can't put in 20 hours.
• The fact is game journalists - of which there are hundreds at the moment - are living off the blood sweat and tears of creative people who love games and regularly work 100 hours weeks. The fact they casually rip on a game gives others involved in the development and marketing process good reason to pissed.
• What this means to me is not harsher reviews, but thoughtful analysis about games, real knowledge of game development, and a deep history of playing games.

It's a thought provoking article from the perspective of anyone who writes reviews, whether professionally or as an amateur on a fansite.

Now that the flip side has been revealed, what are your thoughts about "anonymous guy"?