IGN's reviews and articles are always filled with typos and seem to a bias against PS3. There's also the extreme inconsistencies that the OP brought up (KZ3 losing points for lack of story whereas MW2 they said it doesn't matter because nobody buys it for the story) and their entire rating system in general. Their reviews will praise a game and it'll end up with an 8 (when the review is just glowing) or vice versa, or the final score being higher than all the different parts (presentation, graphics, etc). It's just a really unprofessional site in general.

I'd agree for the most part, I basically only visit two other dedicated gaming sites to this one because they've been less likely to let me down with sensationalist nonsense, factual inaccuracies or general bias influencing tone than the other major websites, although they both slip from time to time (one more than the other). Furthermore, neither of those websites has too much trouble with the maniacal fanboys that you get on N4G and the like.

I'd also say that the problem is the audience. I'm getting closer to 30 now and my tastes have developed over the years so I don't want to read something designed for teenagers in mind, but the trouble is there isn't really anywhere that's developed along with me. It's all still aimed at the latest wave of annoying kids who like to troll for the lulz. I think if more websites acknowledged that there are gamers who have been around for a while and are tired of all that crap and catered a bit more to those kind of tastes, then gaming journalism would improve drastically.

That's one of things that finally got me posting on here, there's a decent enough cross section of ages that such nonsense doesn't happen, and when it does it's quickly eradicated.

i never really feel that way about their reviews except for shooters. and killzone got a great score regardless it doesnt need a 90 to validate itself as awesome. And i dont buy that ps3 bias stuff at all.

I can't remember which review it was that really demonstrated exactly how inconsistent the number at the end is, but it was a review just loving everything about it and very minor, nitpicking, complaints and it got like an 8.5. Now I know what's coming next about an 8.5 being a great score, which it is, but the way the gaming review standards are set up, that's only like pretty good. I know people who will avoid games less than a 9 (who are idiots by the way) but it's just a product of the system. I totally agree though about not needing over a 9 to be awesome because for one, I loved the Force Unleashed for instance, but a lot of the sheep that follow reviews would just avoid an 8 or 8.5. As for the bias, I'm not a fanboy even though I only have a PS3/Wii but I just generally tend to notice things slanted more towards the 360's favour (again going off of memory so I can't think of specific examples...I guess like when something runs better on 360, Bayonetta for instance, it gains extra points over the PS3 version, when something like FFXIII is the exact same even though they say there's problems). 

On a related note, might as well post this here:

 http://movies.ign.com/articles/114/1148788p1.html

Nobody/Nothing can ever be truly ever be truly unbiased or without prejudice IMHO.

OTOH yeah those writers should be reprimanded for putting in so many of their personal opinions and trying to shove it down our throats like that.