StingingVelvet: Reviewers tend to pick games they are allowed to really tear apart, for some reason. Medal of Honor Warfighter was another, torn apart for things Call of Duty does every year but still gets awards for. I don't really know why this stuff happens, I don't think it is bribery I think it's all socially driven, reviewers swapping stories and grudges and whatnot. Who knows, really.
It's this: Almost everyone knows that reviews often are too positive, there's a constant discussion whether "professional" gaming reviews are even trustworthy at all. Therefore, game reviewers are constantly under pressure not only from the publishers (who want positive reviews), but also from their readers (who demand a professional level of criticism). This conflict is very hard to solve when your whole business depends on ads from the publishers. The easiest way out is to give a very bad rating, every once in a while, to a game that might indeed be bad, and that's either not backed up by a major publisher, or that's slammed so universally that the publisher can't really complain about your specific review.
This happens regularly. When a game is an easy target, many reviewers go into dogpile mode. Which makes the game an even easier target for others. And so on.
The game may still be bad though - it certainly doesn't look good.
Elemental: War of Magic is another example. Yes, it was bad, but it also suffered from the fact that it wasn't backed up by a major publisher, so it was an easy target for reviewers who want to "prove" that they can indeed be critical.