And Eurogamer gave it a 7. I still think a 7 from Eurogamer is better than a 7.5 from IGN, but that's just me

How is a 7.5 bad??? I think this only applys when it's exclusive to a console....if it gets a 7 then watch the fanboys bash the game to the max.

did you read the review?

a 20 hours game with many repetitve missions (according to the reviewer) got a 6.5 for lasting appeal

7.5 isn't a bad score in my book.

Because it's not a bad site, just not gamespot level.

Anyway, with the Eurogamer 7/10, and the new 8.5 from IGNau, this IGN score is the only "poor" review this game has gotten, by a mile.

Rainbird said: And Eurogamer gave it a 7. I still think a 7 from Eurogamer is better than a 7.5 from IGN, but that's just me

No, it's not just you. It's obvious to anyone who knows anything about videogame reviews.

Also, check this post:

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=2271473

ZenfoldorVGI said: Rainbird said: And Eurogamer gave it a 7. I still think a 7 from Eurogamer is better than a 7.5 from IGN, but that's just me No, it's not just you. It's obvious to anyone who knows anything about videogame reviews. Also, check this post: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=2271473

Ah yes, I do wish more sites would just stick to a 10 point system and then actually use the full spectre, and not just 7-10 for everything that is mediocre to top of the class.

Pretty pathetic to put an embargo on reviews up to the day after the game releases.

Yep so much better than InFamous

I actually like the concept more then the one used in inFAMOUS, but as soon as I heard that they are cutting the multiplayer to focuse on the singleplayer I knew they are cutting corners :|