Meh, corporate reviews... "comparisons", etc. They became boring and predictable years ago.
I usually don't like to judge entire sites (but I do, like everyone else, it's our nature). But I just read IGN's Mega Man Legacy Collection review recently, the reviewer removed a point because there's no rewinding feature. What? ... I mean What? That's akin to having a re-release of Super Mario Bros. "classics" (SMB1, 2 and 3 for example) in one package in about 10 years from now in which the bottomless pits weren't covered by something to allow safe passage without the need to jump above said pits in a classic platformer ever again. We're talking about the classic 8-bit era Mega Man games... there were no "rewind" feature back then, there's no need for one now, and there's definitely no need nor reason to actually decrease the game's review score because of such a terrible feature's "absence". The review he gave ended up with a score of 9 /10, but the mere fact that he somehow WANTED or expected such a feature in ANY of the classic 8-bit Mega Man games rendered his entire review completely invalid.
I do definitely prefer reading about "Mr. Joe" everyone's thoughts and impressions about various games from their own posts in discussion forums (such as here) or from their video reviews on YouTube for example. The time I do spend reading the known sites' articles is usually just to follow the latest news in general about gaming, more than for their "reviews". I followed most of E3's coverage from GameSpot for instance, as I did following their previews and interviews prior to The Witcher 3's release. That was alright, when it comes to previewing and interviews with developers I don't mind. But when it comes to actual corporate reviews I tend to ignore either the score or most of what they actually mention in said review until I see things confirmed by watching game-play footage on YouTube or other sites (and sometimes via streams as well).
In regards to what you mentioned OP, about the MGSV comparison possibly being disingenuous... well I mean it's almost a given, probably even necessary. They kinda have to act all innocent and going in sort of pretending that they wouldn't know ahead of time prior to doing said comparison themselves that the results were in fact surprising to them (that's an example). To incentivize curiosity for us to keep on watching or reading comparisons it'd be a good idea on their part to play a bit on the psychological side of things. You act like you want to see what the comparisons will show, but you (the guy doing the comparison) actually fully know what to expect, but you're just doing it in that "disingenuous" manner to excuse your comparison article to start with and to give a reason for having the job you have.
That's how I see it anyway. If you go in and make some article and right at the start to say something like " Ok, before we begin with this upcoming comparison, I want you guys to know what I fully knew what to expect ahead of time and I'm only doing this to pretend I had something to work on here at work, so please bear with me! " then the rest of it will be 1) irrelevant and will 2) look like an actual joke, or 3) an insult to would-be readers expecting something "serious" from such a well-known web site.
I haven't read nor watched the comparison though, I'm just expressing how I feel about corporate journalism in general. If the comparison feels disingenuous, that's because it most likely is and the guy(s) who made the comparison probably weren't good at making it subtle enough for us to not pick up their lack of (or care for) sincerity.