The ideal way to review a game is to be given a retail copy from the publisher in advance from the release of the game, let them play it, write a review, and then put it out the day of or the week of release.
Doing review events like this or par-taking in embargoes that last all the way until release time (like AC: Unity...) don't typically go well or aren't great situations for reviewers to be in. Some reviewers may do just fine with those situations while others might rush through the game to be able to write a review on it. Then there's the fact that some reviewers fail to mention the circumstances they were under while playing the game for review -- I believe we've talked about this kind of thing before on here on GAF... where if you were involved in an event held by the publisher to review the game as a journalist it is in your best interest to tell the reader somewhere either before the review or within the review.
This way the reader can have the proper context for your review and whether they can trust you. Doing that alone builds trust between the reader and the writer. Failing to note or put a disclaimer about it creates the uncertainty that we're seeing here because now we don't know who went to the event and who didn't because none of the reviews have this disclaimer. So, it's allowing readers to run wild with whoever's reviews are not trustworthy.
If there was a proper standard all publishers followed for reviews we wouldn't have this problem crop up with every big release. Day 1 embargoes, full week early embargoes, review events, etc. etc. And it happens because there's some people who only can rely on the publisher because they're not big enough to ask for a retail copy or given as much time as possible to play the game for review. It's terrible.
The topic title is a little hyperbolic though, imo, because it's not all reviews and far from the ones with mainstream audiences (IGN, Gamespot, etc.)
