Yea I don't get these random comparisons either.

The only potential problem with this review is if it was done purely for publicity, but I don't believe that theory. I don't have a hard time believing the reviewer just had an awful experience with this game and it is his job to call it like he sees it. You can't blame him that God Hand got a score you feel too low, or that a casual game you'll never play seems to be scored too high.

yep, people should stop comparing different genres if they don't like one of the genre. i read an interview with some guys from famitsu half a year or so ago in a german magazin and they said they only look at how good a game is for people who look at this kind of game. so if there would be a game about painting houses and it would as good as even possible they would give a perfect score even if they would hate it.

and that's what a review is about, giving people who look at those games a good decison help. and if people like games with little dogs i believe nintendogs will be great for them.

ok, ign won't give a game they hate a perfect score even if they know it is perfect for people who look for this but still...

it's like i would compare ninja gaiden 3 with a good baseball game and would laugh about it just because i hate baseball. that wouldn't make any sense.

and it should be clear that for fans of ninja gaiden black and even ninja gaiden 2 the third one will be a huge disappointment for most of them.

I'm not waiting in line for a Wii U version any more. They have the freedom to create trash, I have the freedom to stay away from trash

and if you don't like the review turn your head either left or right to look away from the computer screen

No no no, God Hand, not Ninja Gaiden 3, reading skills mate. 

Also, look at the 'Lasting Appeal' description for Nintendogs, and tell me that warrants an 8.0 score. It's indicative of IGN reviews automatically giving hyped-up games a higher score than their description merits or the game itself deserves. 

I never understood how they can review like that (the God Hand one). The average based on individual score is 5.1 yet the end total is 3. Makes absolutely no sense at all and game reviews are the only kind doing it that way.

I think value/lasting appeal should generally be omitted, as this is always done inconsistently. 

For instance, if a game isn't good it generally gets a lower lasting appeal/value score, even if it has a lengthy amount of content. And if the game is short sometimes they give it a high score on a basis of that you you'd want to play it over and over again. 

In this case it's redundant, because it has the same meaning as the overall score.

There is a reason why the overall score isn't an average of the sub-scores. A single aspect of the game can ruin the rest of the game. For example it doesn't matter if a game has wonderful graphics, a brilliant soundtrack and a fantastic story if the gameplay is so bad you want to throw your controller through the screen.

Oops. Saw the 3.0 and assumed it was Ninja Gaiden :P

Not only that but..."Despite IGN scoring God Hand a poor 3.0 out of 10 during its original release, the website ranked the game at #100 for their "Top 100 PlayStation 2 Games" list in 2010." Soooo yeah.