He probably didn't lower the score because he realised it wasn't a technical problem.  If the game did it everytime at a certain spot or something like that then he would have probably lowered the score.  Ign is pretty consistent with it's reviews on multiplat titles and Mass Effect is a good example of how they are.

^they didn't lower the score , period. What do you want the game to break on you every single time ? They didn't lower the score on the first game either, care to explain that to me? that game is a fucking mess of glitches, low framerate, loading times and texture pop-in. They gave it a high score over 9 too. That to me, it's a piece of shit of reviewing criteria.

Well I think it's something we aren't going to agree on...but I wouldn't use Mass Effect as an example 1 or 2 as why the 360 should have a lower score, most people would argue the opposite as the game really is a console designed game playing it on the PC seems foreign and just weird, but it's still a quality experience.

Either way I understand what you are talking about when it comes to multipat reviews, you would like to see more in depth analysis of each version and right now IGN doesn't do that very often. Personally I don't think they need to but I can see why somebody would.

This is an excerpt from IGN's MASS EFFECT 2 review :  http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/106/1062898p2.html

"Speaking of pleasing people, BioWare listened to every last bit of criticism leveled at Mass Effect 1. That game, particularly on Xbox 360, suffered from a few technical and presentational issues**. This sequel is a much, much cleaner experience. Long elevator rides and slow-loading textures are gone, replaced with (occasionally lengthy) loading screens. Generic cut-and-paste side quests and empty planets to explore have been totally ripped out. Pretty much everything that anybody took even the slightest issue with in Mass Effect 1 has been axed or rebuilt entirely."

He continues "I've played through the game twice and during that time experienced sound cutting out, my character getting stuck in the environment and full game crashes. Thankfully, these miscues are infrequent, which allows the art style to shine.

And yet they scored Mass Effect 2 presentation a  PERFECT 10

What's that called?   B.I.A.S  aka bullshit.

But let me continue :

So the guy recognizes the first one was not particularly well ironed-out at all. It had issues, I dare say lots of them. But still, he recognizes they existed.

Care to explain now how come IGN then awarded the first MASS EFFECT with a 9.4 and most hilarous of all, they score it a HIGH 9.5 IN PRESENTATION.

What's that called again? yeap. Childish fanboy BIAS aka GTFO

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/833/833640p4.html

Notice the SAME guy from IGN wrote both reviews.

BUT HEY! GOD OF WAR III presentation is 8.5 ! Where are my game-crashing glitches? where's my horrible framerate and texture pop-in? where's my long loading times? where's my characters looking like cardboard dolls while moving and talking???? is there any of that in GOWIII? THANK THE LORD THERE ISN'T OR IT WOULD'VE GOTTEN A  6 FOR PRESENTATION!

And that my friends, is BIAS.

**Few my ass.

@ gekkokamen

Not sure I would call that Bias tho, seem more like they are just being inconsistent. This is why reviews should NEVER be rushed out the door, just to meet some arbitrary deadline with an editor at the end of the loop that looks for consistency in the review (IE you have - 4 items going against presentation so the score cannot be a 10)

Besides, reviewing a game on the PC is a bit silly. Most of the reviewers have high end machines (well over recommended) so how does that actually compare to the game running on a "just beats the minimum requirements" machine? I would DEFINITELY say ME 1 and 2 deserve their collective scores with how they ran on my PC (very high end) but my roommates computer (barely meet recommended) it was awful and a MUCH better experience when he bought it for his 360.

^you call inconsistent scoring flawed games 9.6 and 9.4 ? with presentation scores of 10 and 9.5 respectively? and then Scoring a game witth a seemingly flawless presentation based on the written review a 8.5 (in presentation) ?? OoooooooooooooooooooooK.....

It shouldn't be surprising though, coming from the site that awarded MW2 with a 10 in Graphics and a perfect 10 to GTA4, calling its story "Oscar worthy" lol. Thank God my browser is having problems with the IGN page. I know I just went in there to explain my point, but it's something I do it at the risk of losing my sanity. Piece of shit site.

Hold up......Mass Effect rightfully deserves a 9.5 for presentation as it had some of the best graphics for its time but its technical problems docked it a .5 .....ME2 is the same issue but since it didnt have nearly the amount of problems it wasnt warrented to dock it a .5 in presentation.

And why do you bring GOW3 into this....Did you play GOW3? No? Then  I suggest you shut up unless your going to tell me you played the demo or watched videos (which ill still tell you to shut up even if you told me as such).....you have no ground to even accuse other people/sites of having an agenda when clearly ,judging by your post ,that is exactly what you have.

I take it you had no problem with IGN giving MGS4 a 10?

^I take it you have nothing to add to this discussion..

And if there's any game deserving high praise is MGS4, although NO, IT'S NOT A 10 in my book, and it shouldn't be. My discussion is not about preferences, it's about hard facts.

FACT: IGN doesn't measure all the games with the same ruler, even when it comes to same guy writing a review. I could make a case about it, including plenty of PS3 exlcusives.

Do they leave their writers to do whatever they want with their reviews? think again. It's business, it doesn't work that way. They have their higher-ups monitoring what's in and what's out, but those guys don't do a very good job.

FACT: they use the same review for multiple versions of games, but whenever they feel like it they don't. Inconsistent, unprofessional, and not accurate.

FACT: Their aspects grading (presentation, graphics, sound, gameplay, lasting appeal) is inconsistent and vague. I wonder if they even read their previous reviews when they're working on a sequel (see Mass Effect example on previous post above).