Slight tangent here:
Because they will most likely be undeserved, bought and paid for reviews and awards.
Seriously, stop. No one ever bought a review. No one ever accepted bribes for review purposes. This is nonsense.
Yes, there are instances when shady things went down in the industry. Gamespot's infamous Kane & Lynch 2 review is a perfect example of this(Jeff Gertsman was fired for giving the game a low-low score of 6/10 while the publisher of the game was advertising on the site). But even in that case, the decisions were made by the editors who were afraid of loosing a sponsor. The link is a lot more subtle, and such practice has since been mostly avoided. There have been a number of high-profile games which scored fairly low and vice versa.
There have also been cases were certain games were rated more favorably than they "should have" been because the reviewer had the same politics as the creator (I suspect a number of 10/10-s for Inquisition were precisely for this reason, but the most prominent example of this is the recent Ghostbusters reboot: people are tripping over themselves to rate it horrible or perfect depending on their politics, whether the movie is good or not is irrelevant, only the politics of the reviewer matters). Yes, it's unethical and unbecoming of a critic to make such mistakes, but this is a simple case of group-think, not a sinister conspiracy.
What I'm trying to say is this: yes, there are plenty problems in the "professional game critic" profession these days, but most of them stem from fairly simple and subtle reasons: advertising snafus, friendly relationships between reviewer and creator, a false sense of political obligation, etc. But summing these problems up in such a crude(and demonstrably false) way as "bought and paid for reviews" makes you look stupid and easily dismiss-able and makes anyone who is trying to argue the point more accurately share the same fate.
So don't do it.
Retour en haut
But again, I heard about bots in other countries as well such as USA. 
