Why do all game reviews sound the same ?

Whenever a triple A game's reviews come out, they all sound the same. Like Fox News. Everyone sounds like a parrot. 

Is this because critics focus on the game as if it's a toy/product, vs its artistic merit? What's good about the game, what's bad about it, bullet points. Is this the fault of using review scales, like 1-10?

This doesn't make sense, compared to film reviews, because playing a game is surely a more subjective experience than viewing a movie.

Are they all paid for? Or are only the highest rated reviews let out first, like Game Informer?

Hmm perhaps an example as to what about them sounds the same would help me understand exactly what you mean. 
 
I guess they go over the same things, I mean it IS the same game, the people are doing the same job, what differs is how they cover those things, and of course, personal writing style. 
 
And no, the idea that the majority of reviews are bought and paid for is silly. 

Why do all car reviews sound the same? 

Maybe because they're playing the same game the same way? That sounds like a good suggestion. Also, looking at another person's review usually contributes to that.

why do all . same?

I think you see this as so because you are (in my opinion, no offense) a hypercritical individual. At least, when it comes to video games.
 
Some games lots of people like, and, therefore, get good reviews. Lots of games like that have come out recently. There's nothing really more to it.
 
Some movies have come out recently that lots of people liked, and therefore it got lots of reviews that sounded similar. Just about every critic gave it a good review.
 
if you want proof that video game critics think for themselves, look at the reviews for FFXIII. They are high, low, and everywhere in-between.

" Why do birds...suddenly appear? "

Probably because, like most journalism, people are taught to write in a certain style intended to promote clarity. Add to that the fact that in something as small and limited in scope as the games press, people aren't operating in a bubble and they're reading each other's work. So yes, you wind up with a lot of similar sounding work; that said, if you really pay attention, you can definitely find people with individual voices - especially at sites like Giant Bomb or (whether you like it or not) Destructoid, which have pretty distinct personalities. You'll find less at something like IGN which is much more of a "hard news" organization.

" @Abyssfull said:

" Why do birds...suddenly appear? "

Everytime, you are near! "

" @eroticfishcake said:

" @Abyssfull said:

" Why do birds...suddenly appear? "

Everytime, you are near! "

just like me! "

" @trophyhunter said:

" @eroticfishcake said:

" @Abyssfull said:

" Why do birds...suddenly appear? "

Everytime, you are near! "

just like me! "

They long to be "

mark it that was the first time everyone has ever sumptuously broke out in to song in a forum

.......yeah. I agree with the OP in that all reviews sound the same. I think it comes down to the fact that the games are all about mechanics, and that they are all nearly the same. Within the category of third person shooters, for example, what are the differences between games? By definition, the camera is the same, and the primary action of your character is the same. Also, the button layout is almost always the same. What else is there? Generally, it is the plot, which is usually not a topic of discussion. The rest is just a skin: different textures and skins.
That is why car reviews and cell phone reviews are all the same. They are about mechanics, usually none of which are really novel ideas. Really, the same can be said for movie reviews, but movie reviews are a little more varied because they often include how they made the reviewer feel, and that subjective injection adds some variance.

You really think they all sound the same? I don't think that at all.
 
Game reviews are always going to cover the same ground (games are all fundamentally the same in that they have controls, sound, graphics, and goals). Games are almost always part of a specific genre, which means we'll get comparisons (not always explicit) about how the game compares to others like it. We'll hear about the story (if there is one) or premise, and technical problems or triumphs.
 
That sounds like a lot of the same stuff, but I find most reviewers do a decent job of creating a distinct voice for themselves. Consistency in reviews is largely because as reviews they serve a specific purpose, and as readers of reviews, we're often looking for specific sorts of information. If we don't get that information, the review has failed to fulfill its purpose.

Reviewers don't look at games and try to find the positives and be optimistic about them, which in my opinion is where the fun in all games lie. Reviewers just look for negatives in a game and let that get in their way of having fun.

That is why I love watching the zero punctuation reviews.  Instead of looking at the positives of a game he looks at the complete opposite.  Which is quite informative, knowing the things that are going to piss you off when you play it.

" @Evilsbane said:

" @Feser said:

" @OhdK said:

" @Pazy said:

" @trophyhunter said:

" @eroticfishcake said:

" @Abyssfull said:

" Why do birds...suddenly appear? "

Everytime, you are near! "

just like me! "

They long to be "

so clear and free "

But what are we? "

Wise or dumb? Young or Old? "

But not birds that are never old "

" @xyzygy:    What? Although that's the case for some reviewers, I doubt that it's the majority. Preparing for one day becoming a game reviewer, I can say that it isn't the case on either part. "

" Reviewers don't look at games and try to find the positives and be optimistic about them, which in my opinion is where the fun in all games lie. Reviewers just look for negatives in a game and let that get in their way of having fun. "

" @Abyssfull said:

" Why do birds...suddenly appear? "

Everytime, you are near! "

Same is lame.

Bad writing is why.

" Whenever a triple A game's reviews come out, they all sound the same. Like Fox News. Everyone sounds like a parrot. Is this because critics focus on the game as if it's a toy/product, vs its artistic merit? What's good about the game, what's bad about it, bullet points. Is this the fault of using review scales, like 1-10? This doesn't make sense, compared to film reviews, because playing a game is surely a more subjective experience than viewing a movie. Are they all paid for? Or are only the highest rated reviews let out first, like Game Informer? "

It's pretty simple. If a game is a "triple A title" or whatever you want to call it, that game is probably pretty good. As a result, a lot of game reviewers are going to write a review saying "Hey, this is pretty good".

How else are they supposed to be written? 

In general I would agree.  Most game reviews are pretty boring and I rarely read them anymore.  

Buzzwords pop into the search engine so the more you use them the higher up you'll be. So if you want the most page hits from people looking for positive reviews, buzzwords.

Maybe because they have similar writting styles? Also you have to take into account that most of the reviews will cover the same things, especially if it is a really good game. Most of them will cover how that game is great, so repetition can be expected.

I'm guessing because not only is there a somewhat consistent formula towards writing a review that most subscribe to, but that they are also playing the same game. 
With those two elements combined, it is likely that sometimes game reviews will sound alike.

" It's pretty simple. If a game is a "triple A title" or whatever you want to call it, that game is probably pretty good. As a result, a lot of game reviewers are going to write a review saying "Hey, this is pretty good". "

Thanks for the great responses. Reading this "100 lamest game-industry cliche phrases" makes it a lot more clear to me why they all sound the same.