The IGN staff don't read it anyway. Judging from their various podcasts, their public panels and plenty of interviews, you can tell that many of the members of their stuff are extremely stuck up and stubborn. Most reviewers will never acknowledge that they've made mistakes and due to a close knit work environment, they are rarely ever told off.
Giant Bomb and Classic Game Room HD are the only two independent outlets I trust, mainly because I've gotten to know their reviewers and they are extremely experienced and open with what they do.
I like IGN, I just wish that they'd work harder to stay consistent and factual. The same applies to Eurogamer, Joystiq and Destructoid. I hate Edge though, they probably write the best out of all the other outlets, but they are incostistent as fuck and it's always the same three reviewers making the three same pre misconciptions and mistakes. Edge aren't harsh, they just don't know what they're doing half the time.
and if you watch the video review, it sounds like an 8.5
he says it has a 5 hour campain, but so does pretty much all Call of duty's.
he also says the multiplayer is really fun, though doesnt mention much of it.
for the past 6 months ign's reviews confuse me.
im also sick of 1 page and 1.5 page reviews (even KZ3 was a 1 page review, then they did some formating, and it made it into a 1.5 page)
edit: its also puzzling that he compared the graphics to KZ3 and crysis and because it doesnt stand up to them, he critizes it. if they were consistant, that means 99% of games including call of duty should get 5's (but ironically enough MW2 got a 10)