I understand the fact that it is a different reviewer and therefore there is going to be different opinions on the matter. However, it does look unprofessional on IGN's side of things.
The website needs to uphold consistency with its reviews. If two people can review the game on the same website and give it an entirely different review, that makes both the reviews entirely subjective and inconsistent. The editor of IGN needs to pick up on these sort of things so the score system does not become a big joke. Example, if a bug-fest game like Assassin's Creed Unity scores 7.5, and a game like Batman: Arkham Knight scores 7.5 - it gives the same sense of quality between two games (when clearly Arkham Knight is the better game of the two). It is inconsistent within the scoring system that IGN provides. IGN's editors need to look at previous reviews and match them up with newer ones to see if they equate in a way that makes sense.
A review lacks credibility when it is inconsistent with other reviews featured on the same website. They need more quality control, or at least have the previous review updated with the new reviewers thoughts. When a review is made it should consist of formula that scores a game based on its merits (lack of bugs, good gameplay, graphics, artstyle etc.), your opinion of the game should come last.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
