First of all, "I have a feeling" ≠ true. It's your speculation. What's true is that different reviewers have different taste.
Secondly, I've done nothing but express the flaws of the review score system and why I don't think it's good to rely on scores and Metacritic since I first joined this site, including in this very topic, so I certainly don't fall under your category of people who would get annoyed because of that, as I've never expressed disappointment in any review score ever, and never will. But the fact that you try to drag me into it as well only further shows that you're more interested in trying to discredit others for belonging to a different fanbase, than sharing your opinion on the subject at hand.
I can get annoyed seeing spam and unproductive posts as well. Doesn't have to relate to me specifically, other than the fact that I'm participating in this discussion and would like to read meaningful posts.
But yours is not only a mudslinging attempt at certain individuals based on nothing but your own speculations, because they belong to a different fanbase, but also ignoring the fact that reviewers do have different opinions. That's why I found it annoying to see in this case. I'm fine with seeing mudslinging posts if it's warranted. If you had proof and could call someone out on it with a link or two, that would be great. But this only comes off as petty and paranoid. Because whether you believe that these people would change their minds if the situation was reversed or not, their point is still accurate, and you only have unwarranted suspicions.

As for your suggestion about assigning the same reviewer, you're another example of people who take review scores way too seriously if that's your suggestion. And you also have to realise that when an editor assigns a different reviewer to a different version of a game, they have a reason for doing so. One that is more important than catering to certain people's insecurities about the importance of review score accuracies. Such as the reviewer in question no longer working there, or having been assigned to a different part of the company. Maternity leave. Vacation. Or they don't want to waste time playing the same game again when they're more interested in reviewing a different game, and a new recruit is a bigger fan of the FPS Zombie franchise. Or the original reviewer was critisized for the first review, so they listened to the feedback and gave the readers a review from a fresh. Reading two different perspectives is usually better than reading only one, etc. There are a lot more reasons that can be mentioned for why the same reviewer may not be preferred for a second review, or even able to do it. But more importantly is that a lot of people need to stop obsessing about these things. Instead of focusing on the score, look at the context of the review. A review that gave a game a 7/10 can sound more appealing to you than a review that gave it a 9/10.

So on reading an IGN review of Zombi, it scores 7.5. Good score, however the same site gave the Wii U version a 6.3. Let's get this straight, for Zombi to score higher you strip the gamepad features, remove the gamepad-centric multiplayer and make the graphics barely any better. Also remove the cool dirty lens feature and have the framerate drop to the mid 20fps mark on Buckingham palace, but its cool because its on playstation and Xbox...im lost for words.

What rattles me is your lack of punctuation, commas, and capital letters, if I've misunderstood anything in your post. The reader shouldn't have to descipher where one sentence ends and another begins. If there's been any misunderstanding, then don't blame me and start typing like a normal person.
Now you're saying "at least have the reviewer get acquainted with the prior version", but before you simply said "or the reviewer can play both versions to see how they compare".
Unless you specify otherwise, when you talk about a reviewer playing a game, people will assume you mean the full game. A reviewer only playing a small portion of a game before a review is never assumed and rather unheard of. But regarding that, if the differences in the new version are many and spread out throughout the entire game, then there would be little point in only "getting aquainted" with the other version. Persona 3: FES for example has so many differences spread out throughout the whole game, not to mention a second story that takes place after the events of the first game, that an opinion from a reviewer that hasn't played the whole thing would be rather pointless if you're looking for an accurate comparison.

Either way, there's no way to guarantee that the previous reviewer can get involved in the new review for a number of reasons. As for playing a portion of the other versions, besides getting complaints from readers about lack of accuracy, it would not necessarily impact the review score in a coherent way either. As time passes, standards change. The superior versions of Resident Evil 4 with extra content recieved lower scores than the original Gamecube version even if the reviewer has played both versions.
It's better to not obsess over review scores, and focus on what matters. The context of the review. Like I said before, a 7/10 review can sound more appealing to you than a 9/10 review.
And this obviously is about fanbase as you specifically mentioned PS4/XBO. Not another WiiU game.

And a person who has never complained about a review score ever and is openly against review scores has possibly exposed themselves of being a person who complains about review scores when the roles are reversed? Sounds legit. But it's good to know your deductive prowess for future reference.

There were multiple "game-breaking-crash" bugs in the original release of Zombi U which lowered the score, if I recalled I had to restart the game twice because of such "errors" and one of them was so freaking sad--I opened a door before going to a certain spot. It was never fixed for the WII U as far as I recall but in the PC version that glitch doesn't exist.

The first time I only had to redo about 1hr worth of progress, the second time I was nearly 12+ hours in.  :(  Yeah, my orginal review of Zombi U was an 5 :0.

http://www.ign.com/wikis/zombiu/Bugs_&_Glitches

Journalistic integrity is about the audience.  It means you're not going to lie to them even if lying would make the writer or the publication look better.  This is a perfect example.  If the editor told the writer to put together a review that made Zombi fall two points below ZombiU, no one would be yelling at IGN right now but it would mean the writer lying to the reader and would make the article itself completely worthless.

They absolutely should never have anything like a table.  The very moment an editor tells an employee that their own opinion is wrong and invalid and that they want them to write a review BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT SOMEONE ELSE'S OPINION IS THE ONLY CORRECT OPINION then they've just negated the very basis of what an opinion is, they've told their new writer that their old writer was better, and they've straight-up delivered a lie to the reader.  

That should never happen, especially over something as subjective as a review score.  Opinions vary, sometimes greatly.  That's natural and anyone who is reading opinion based articles should understand that.

People have different opinions. The readers are aware of this as well.
Reviewer A could appreciate the Social Link system of Persona 3, while Reviewer B dislikes it, and even finds that it becomes a hindrance to their gameplay experience since ignoring it has a negative consequences on the battle system. If their opinions continue to differ on different aspects of the game, the score could, and should, become noticably different. I wouldn't say that a 1.2 point difference on a scale of 10 is "wildly vary" though.