I'll be the first to agree that there's plenty of stench in the gaming press, but I'm curious why everyone immediately leaps to the most mercenary, conspiratorial conclusions.
Remove any publisher influence at all, and the gaming press is still part of the gaming industry. A side industry perhaps, but not a separate one. Which means, the more interest there is in games, the greater the audience. In other words, it's in the best interest of the press to maintain and amplify that enthusiasm wherever possible.
So, game X is announced, and it has a totally clean slate. As anticipation in the game increases, attention on your site/magazine increases with it. Then comes the time for a first legitimate preview. The most self-destructive thing the press could do at that point is quash all interest in that game. Goodbye anticipation, goodbye readers (viewers, listeners, whatever). Far better to fuel the fires and let the review rain down on it if necessary.
I'm not defending this approach if it involves
actual dishonesty about a game's quality, but nor will I condemn hype simply for being hype, and perhaps that's part of a preview's role. Otherwise, why have them at all? They aren't the last, definitive word on the game. That's a review's job. So why is the assumption that a preview should do the same thing as a review, just earlier and based on incomplete versions? Should it?
There are lots of other reasons why previews might be more positive than not, but I won't get into that. Again, I'm not disputing that there is plenty of bogus journalism out there. But it's not nearly as cut and dried as "all previews are positive to appease publishers". I call major bunk on that one.
EDIT: And for the record, AG doesn't sugar coat its previews.
