And thus we arrived at my entire point; citing lack of content as a reason why Titanfall should be deducted is ridiculous if one does not concede that the same should apply for Splatoon.

Titanfall was actually noted for having a lack of content, but not great enough to warrant further deductions.

That is your opinion. The problem is the reviewer didnt mention those type of things in his review. They are under one gaming organization (IGN). If the reviewer really didnt bother to compare then it is really not a good review since it is a port. A ported game can really have a better score than the original one but they need to justify it which the reviewer have failed to do. 

That is true. It is about IGN which doesnt have any consistency on how they review ported games. I like IGN and read and watch a lot from their site, but a simple comparison and mention why was the score better than the orginal than the port would help justify it. 

It did happen to Splatoon, so it should also happen to Titanfall. Yet it didn't. Titanfall has less content than Splatoon currently has.

Who cares? It was crap then and and years later it's crap now.

Titanfall was cited and deducted for having a lack of content by several reviwers, just not as big as Splatoon upon launch. If one title has less content and both get flack for it; it's only natural that the title with the least content get the bigger deduction for lack of content. Besides, content is only one aspect, it is also entirely possible that the majority of reviewers simply see Titanfall as the superior online competitive shooter, which may seem ridiculous to someone who loves Splatoon and doesn't like Titanfall.
The fact that Splatoon isn't even aimed at the same audience should also, of course, be tallied into the equation, another thing people seem to forget.

I can't really object to either since I haven't played any of them, and the fact that I don't own either should be a clear enough indication of my personal opinion of their value(s).

Does it really matter if a different reviewer gives it a higher score.... it means they like the game more than the previous reviewer did.

My rule of thumb is that reviews I normally give a 2 point score either way (depending on it's score).... So even though I am yet to play it, I would say that zombie is probably a 5-7 or 6-8 level of game, depending on your point of view. There have been a few that have gone higher than the 2, such as Mafia 2 (which scored 4 on EG but I felt it was an 8) and Dead Island which was given low scores on some sites.

I've just purchased it and it has 1400 reviews and it's over 4.5/5 so the users think it's a good game.

I predict that this game will sell better than the Wii-u version.

Titanfall is just another FPS, it doesn't stand out or does something new. I mean Titanfall has 6 online modes of which 4 are practically the same. I really have no idea how it got such a high score.

Damn right it's my opinion - for me, beeing locked in place with scanner is really bad design, being locked AND having to wave around with Gamepad would most likely make me quit the game real quick.

As for IGN, I never read IGN reviews or generally visit IGN, so I really don't know what he wrote. There are number of reasons why this particular reviewer might think this port is worth 7.5, or he just simply disagrees with low score of original review. Honestly, I find this whole thread a bit silly, with some usual suspects thinking it's some sort of attack on Nintendo.

In the end, for me this is a decent game and it's well worth spending $20, despite the flaws.

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.