Honestly i think the industry would be much better if the reviews only were published one week after the game is released so it doesn´t have influence the sales of the game. The way reviews are today is just killing the whole industry since it can be used to manipulate the customres the way the games companies want.
The latest example is NHL and the review embargo of the game fearing low scores because of the lacking of game modes and features on it. Also the same EA will, for sure, allow the reviews of Fifa one week early since they know there will be 9´s and 10´s floating all around the internet. They even have the audacity of printing reviews scores on the cover of games to sell more. That´s acceptable for a later year "complete edition" or "game of the year edition", but not on release.
It would be excellent, but much of the function of reviews is not to be truthful but rather to work in tandem with the hype already created. They are malicious in a way but it's just the very old media practice of buying into what people want to read about. I'd wager that the majority of people who read reviews go in with an agenda already (whether for or against) and as such reviews of games won't function autonomous to the reader's expectations. I don't think writers and their editors are very strong-minded in their critical thinking; they are very easily influenced by other things (ie readership, pressure from publishers) whether they're willingly choosing to be or not.
And yes it's very sad, but you don't have to buy games until a week after they're out for a start and then if you want to read reviews there are various independent places which, like you, only review their own bought copies. Finding them is a bit of a pain, but they're out there man. Avoid gamefaqs.