BS reviews exist since ever. How in the world can editors give Failcry 2 9+ when the game barely hits a 5/10 and that with a lot of 'let's ignore some of the bad things' ?
If anyone thinks is OK rating 9+ a game with practically no AI, no innovation, next to no action, full of bugs (practically unplayable in some situations), cloned/copy-pasted everything, anti-player landscape, useless trading system, bad FoV and wide-res problems, then we have a big problem with reviews.
Practically that game didn't had anything but nice GFx, and that partially bugged and it got a 9.
Now that's what I'd call bribed review.
In the case of BF3, probably EA tried to filter a little, but any above average editor would of got the trick right and would of answered the questions with something very close to what EA would want to hear.