See, I have problems with IGN-style reviews. They talk up "lasting appeal" when that's not necessary for all titles... Gears needs a high replayability factor while a MGS or AC does not. It needs the MP because that's expected in FPS games and the campaign itself is brutally short. Some of my other problems are vague terms like "presentation". WTF does that even mean? They have graphics as another category so that's not it... Is it art style? Is there more to it than that?
I hate the idea of breaking a game, or any other art, into numbers and I doubly hate the idea of breaking those numbers into smaller categorized numbers. Personally, I would love to see a site that just talked about the game, described the good and bad, weighed the options, and then left it up to the reader to decide if that title is right or wrong for them. Then again, people are stupid and hate to read so that site would probably never succeed.
The wide range of AC's scores shows it to be a love it or hate it title. Some hated it for its flaws while others forgave some of those flaws and looked toward some of the amazing things the game achieved. It's really dependent on how you view games and gaming, I guess.
Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/
