I wouldn't consider IGN "Idiots" per say, but biased is in discussion for me. Lowering a game score based on a mechanic or level that was perfectly acceptable in its original form seems to me more like cherry picking than editorial critique. Even more so of what makes me disgusted regarding IGN's review system is to refuse clear issues that impede a games enjoyment but continue to discuss the positives of said game ( i.e. Any Call of Duty after Modern Warfare and before Advanced Warfare, Evolve, etc.). A game should be critiqued should it impede enjoyment, fail to innovate, or simply not work; not complain about a section or something miniscule in comparison due to the fact that the reviewer did not like it.
Gaming journalism has to be unbiased but retain proper editorial etiquette for readers to obtain better understanding of why said game was critiqued in the manner that was. I know this colloquium is older than me, but when I read some of IGN's reviews, Swole" is often the first adjective that comes to mind; especially if the reviewer critiques something that is irrelavent towards the enjoyment or innovation that the game being reviewed offers.
" It has never been about acknowledgement when you achieve something. When you are acknowledged, then and only then can you achieve something. Always have your friends first to achieve your goals later." - OnlyForDisplay
