This post was mostly to see if I could do this on the new site, but did anyone else happen to notice that the game Alex (and most other game journalists) says to avoid like the plague rated one point off from a perfect 10 on EGM? A blurb from metacritic is "it serves as one of the most robust story-driven co-op experiences to date." If Patrick was well it would be kind of interesting to see an interview or something with the editorial staff at EGM to see how they peer reviewed or justified such a statistical anomaly of a review. Not that I think that they should have looked at other people's reviews, but someone else had to have ok'd the review before it went up right? It's sad, but this is basically the topic that they were talking about on the Bombcast a few (?) weeks ago with regard to games journalism, trust, "payoffs" from developers etc. One of the reasons I usually weight reviews from this site higher than others.
Side note, the bio about the reviewer indicates he spent "the last 17 years in the game industry wearing hats as an annoying retail weasel . . " I don't think being in retail selling games can count toward your years in the game industry. Not unless selling DVDs at Best Buy also counts as being in the movie industry.