Link to article here.

Some high-profile games simply aren’t working the way they were designed to work.

These games captured as much as a $60 entry fee from millions of eager gamers worldwide who were then left with nothing but frustration.

You’ve earned the right to not believe a publisher or developer when they tell you that their game will work day one.

While I applied them for at least finally coming around to addressing the issue, I honestly will like to just say;

"IGN and probably 95% of all the other game publications can just go to hell"

They are at the very heart of why problems like these exist to begin with. With them giving glowing reviews to games that are broken beyond all measure and require day one patches, games that remain broken for months and even years after release. Yet they give these games 8s and 9s and then talk about crap like how reviews are just opinions.

They should really just go to hell. How about in their reviews they boldly and simply point out, "This game is broken, do not buy yet" 

I think that not giving them a 9.0 would help.

Depends on your definition of 'review'. Is it 'How good is this game?' or 'How well does this game run?'

IGN comment on how good the game is whilst telling you in the review there are technical issues. If you read that, and continue to buy the game you cannot say you haven't been warned.

AC:Unity is actually (I found) a good game, it's just a shame it was technically awful.

how about you focus on becoming a decent publication first, IGN.

A review is an evaluation, hence it should not be influenced by personal taste or opinion (or pay checks from publishers). But that's not how (popular) business (games industry) works. All those opinions, arguments and emotions just help marketing a game so why should other businesses (publications) do proper reviews when they can cash in on debatable articles and headlines.

Nobody should ever read IGN. Every IGN click makes the industry just a little worse.

Yes complain about your own behaviour, but keep it.

Personal taste I'll give you (I'm not going to review a RTS game as I dislike them), but opinion? You can't objectively review how good the controls feel, or how good the art style looks or if the story is good.

A review os 'I like this, this, this, this could've used some work and this'. If a review was objective and objectively measured every (real) score would be the same. You can't just benchmark a game and come up with a number of how good it is. All reviews are opinion.

Lots of things are determined by personal taste and opinion. Objective reviews are rare, those that do exist read more as descriptions then actual ''reviews'' and they certainly shouldn't be scored. Many qualities of games and ''entertainment'' needs the reception of a bias individual (essentially a human being) to gauge how effective they are (specific for that person). You can't judge music objectively, nor can you aesthetics (not graphics), nor can you fun or reward.

The Paragnm shift in FFXIII allowed for less micro-management and more emphasis on wider tactics. This is a statement on what it does, whether its a progressive gameplay innovation or not required requires an opinion. Oblivion was glitchy as F*** but It wouldn't stop me from saying it is one of the best RPGs ever created (in my opinion :p)

just take 0,1p away from the score every time a AAA title wants you to pay extra money for little thingis or for cheats.
that would bring some games down to negative scores...