Is illegal collusion happening with the review scores of the game "Mixtape"?

As I wrote in a previous blog post, the recently published video game "Mixtape" has been raising some eyebrows because something like a whopping twenty professional video game journals have been giving it review scores of 10's and 9's out of 10, many of them (such as IGN) calling it a "masterpiece" and a "game of the year candidate".

This has raised many eyebrows for several reasons:

1. Almost no video game in existence has received this many perfect and almost-perfect scores from 20+ professional reviewers.
2. The game was made by some extremely obscure "indie" game studio with no fame at all, prior to this.
3. The game is complete crap. It's a 3-hours-long game that's nothing but cutscenes occasionally being interrupted by a walking simulator with occasional minigames that have no failure conditions of any kind. In other words, you can't fail and there is literally zero challenge to the game. On top of that, the cell-shaded graphics look like crap, and the animations are choppy and low-framerate (on purpose, perhaps because it looks "artsy").
4. Several of the reviews even question whether this can be classified as a video game at all because of that. While still giving the game a 10/10.
5. Despite being a small game made by an obscure small "indie" game studio, the game features a fully licensed sountrack consisting of at least a dozen existing commercial songs (which are not exactly cheap to be licensed for use in a video game). This is more than most triple-A games have.
6. There are literally dozens and dozens of existing games that are extremely similar to this (ie. story-driven minimal-gameplay shell-shaded has-no-failure-conditions games that are more like slightly interactive movies than actual games.) This one doesn't stand out from those others in any way.

As I mentioned in that previous blog post, it's literally impossible for 20+ professional game journals to all of them completely independently and in isolation give such a game a 10/10 or 9/10, because the game is extremely unremarkable, it's nothing but a crappy 3-hours-long cutscene and walkathon, and there's absolutely nothing in it that would make it one of the best games in existence.

One publication giving it a 10 out of 10? Very possible (particularly if it's IGN, which is notorious for its absolutely asinine and random scoring.) Over 20 publications doing the same at the same time, completely independently of each other? That's literally impossible.

It's very clear that some kind of collusion happened behind the scenes.

Turns out that while the "indie" game studio itself is extremely obscure and unremarkable, their publisher is not. Turns out that their publisher, Annapurna Interactive, was founded by the daughter of one of the richest people in the world, Larry Ellison (with she herself not being exactly poor either).

Many people are suspecting that the publisher company has been doing something legally questionable behind the scenes in order to buy those perfect scores from so many publications.

It has already been shown that they have been sending expensive gift sets to content creators (containing actual valuable stuff, like a CD player and headphones). This in itself is right on that fuzzy line of legality, where it might or might not be technically legal.

Even then, it's strange why 20+ professional game publications would rush to give this non-game a 10/10 or a 9/10 just because of a CD player and headphones. Sure, those are nice, but I doubt many reviewers (no matter how leftist they might be) would be dissuaded by merely this to declare the game a "masterpiece" and a "game of the year contender".

I think something more has been going on behind the scenes besides this.

Maybe authorities should look into this?