I wrote, I guess, a rather lengthy response to this featured blog post and instead of throwing it out I thought I'd blog my answer and leave it to other readers to come here and see it. I'm sorry if the click wasn't worth it, but I wasn't about to drop 450 words just to fit it in the slot. =)
Gaming is an irrational market. I'm not disagreeing with the author at all, but from it's core, we have absolutely no idea--barring actually playing a game in its entirety--if a game is a good purchase. Purchasing one arbitrarily because it's a 9.5, or not buying a game simply because it's a 4.0, without any other discerning information (not even looking at screenshots) is a rather silly idea. I doubt highly anyone searches for the top review scores, lists them and runs out to buy the game without at least reading a review. Supplementing your decision with guidance from others is a natural human behavior. There is nothing wrong with reviews or reviewing, there's a problem with bad reviews and bad reviewing. Telling the difference is where the consumer comes in.
"Time to market" of the vast majority of reviews should not be a problem. I am fairly confident that Gamespot does not wait in line to buy a game before reviewing it and that they have at least near-release material to work from before they even begin typing. Small shops don't have the ad revenue to force them to be quick, they do so at their own bidding--as any giddy child will be excited or dismayed at the first instant a present is unwrapped. The middle of the road sites, where there's some money being made is where I think speed would be a factor. They probably won't get games given to them, so they will purchase the game like everyone else and then in an effort to "be the first" or more likely, ride the first wave, they have to pressure themselves to review quickly. Small shops will try, but in the end they have little impact and they (and the advertisers) know it. All of this is gross generalization, but after years of reading these websites and paper publications before that has lead me to the conclusion that the reviewing world is somewhat like it is in my head. So the issue is not the content, it's who gives you the content.
Trusting, blindly, a person's opinion or as an extension trusting their opinion as fact is the most damaging issue in any marketplace--video games or snake oil. Selling your wares through false pretense through, let's say, cajoled bank balances is what the original post looks to allude to. That hook's been catching suckers since the day money was invented. Spotting these charlatans is our job. If this is really what the author is stating as the cause for all of this: first to review, over-hyped, splashes of color with no substance that it is not the market's fault it's the way it is...it is us.
My pseudo-agreeing point is that the average consumer is under informed or completely ignorant about what's out there--that is why marketing exists--and the only way to get a decent handle on what's good and what's not is a balanced approach to becoming informed and to whom you give your trust to inform you. And the only way to do that is to be an irrational consumer, at least until you get burned.
Queue Gerstmann Gate and the other shake ups of the past few years. Hopefully we all learned a little bit of something from them.