Hmm, that's kinda strange, but I guess they've been reviewed by different editors.

I know this is not an average. My point (my question) is how can the same game have different such different scores. I think it is more a show of bias against a console/for a console. This is why I backed it up showing how most critics have the other take. That is why I also said there needs to be some checking when two people review the same game so that there is not such a discrepancy.

There are some puzzles to me. For example, how the same presentation (both mention load issues), musical score, and lasting appeal can score higher on Xbox 360. (I also find it ironic that this may be the first time the same game gets a higher graphics score on the Wii). Notice I did not say gameplay where the demerit is explained.

That is why I have posted. If you read reviews, there are some out there who dock the Wii just because it is not the Xbox 360 or PS3. On the surface, that appears to be the case here. (And given the problems this game is having on some 360 units and the general trend of other reviews, it is just a surprising score differential).

Mike from Morgantown

I dont think this is any problem with Bozon i have always liked the IGN Wii teams reviews, I prefer people who dont give out high scores to every game ever, like 8.7 to the 360 version which you make sound inferiour. The problem lies with people wanting every game to score high and reviews who are willing to overrate games just so they dont get topics saying they fail.

The game is likely worth an 8/10 and thats what it recived, Brawl was probally worthy of its 9.5 and thats what it got. I swear some people would just prefer if all review sites gave everything 9+ then we can try to work out which game is the best ourselves, Im personally happy with the Wii team and clearly its a problem with the 360 team if there standards are so low how can a 360 owner get a good judgment of a game if there all over-rated.

I don't care what the hell he scored it, his review is just poor. He glosses over the general game stating you already know it from the PS2 version, which if you're reading the review there's a good chance you haven't played it the PS2 version. Looslely talks about the controls and the new content and then wraps it up by saying it's a cash grab port but it's Bully so all is forgiven. The previews were more informative in my opinion.

The 360 reviewer seemed a little more considerate to his audience as he takes time to explain Bully itself and even warns new buyers your first hour or so will likely suck sense everyone is against you at the beginning and you'll need to tough out. Goes on about the class set-up, admits it is actually rather linear game, has a large cast of great characters. Generally a lot more helpful. He also admits it doesn't really play to the 360's strengths as no online play in the new multiplayer segment or leaderboards. And the graphical update is fairly underwhelming at times.

As for IGN not giving out high scores to every game, Bozon gave SSX Blur 8.4 and Scarface: The World is Yours an 8.5. A good bit higher than there GameMetaRankingsCritics whatever average.

Two different reviews, Bozon's isn't the retarded one. This is why IGN is stupid for splitting up into teams related to hardware, to review their games.

The 360 version doesn't deserve a 8.7, but these people didn't exactly talk to each other before they reviewed their games.

You can't really compare reviews across different platforms for IGN.

Bozon (and the IGN Nintendo team in general) is a relatively tough reviewer, and Hilary tends to overrate a lot of games.

You guys pay too much attention to the scores.

Yeah, all so true, it's not like they liked the Xbox 360 version better or worse, it's just that both versions were reviewed by different people from different teams.

Yeah. Despite both working for IGN, this is a case of two different reviewers. So the different scores really only reflect the different critics' tastes...

So there's no real problem here.

FYI - Bozon talked about this in the recent podcast and basically said that he felt he couldn't give it a higher score than Godfather because he felt godfather was a better version of essentially the same game.

Make of that what you will, I'm not defending him, just relaying the info~

Did he go into detail why? Because that could be very helpful.