There is one difference being the game was released later.

The standard of games had improved yet Braid had not.

The is why a lower score is justified.

Its obvious MS moneyhatted that review. :( :P

Maybe the rule just doesn't apply to games that the PSN management turns down flat and then get released on a competitor's network and finds success, now allowing the game to finally show up on the network. That's what happened with Braid. It was offered up to the folks at PSN and was rejected originally.

I know, but since it's not an average score based on the sub categories, it doesn't matter.

The game is like one year old aswell.

Completely understandable on IGN's part. The game is over a year old now. When it came out on 360, for it's time, it was a 88.

Now, a year later, the same game is only worth 8.5. Makes perfect sense. If Killzone 2 came out today, after Modern Warfare 2, people would be much harsher when reviewing it.

Two different people reviewed it. If a review is an opinion, why would the reviewer not use his/her opinion. Trying to give a score based on someone else's review is just stupid.

As time goes on expectations change and reviewers usually are less affected by market hype. For example I don't think games like Halo 3, Gears of War or Mass Effect would score that well if they would be released unchanged at the end of this generation of consoles.

Also there are different expectations for different platforms, if a PS3 or 360 game would look like a Wii or PS2 game this would be heavily punished, while if the game would be exactly the same on the PS2 or Wii the game may receive much praise.

Hypothetically it would be nice if at the end of this generation there would somehow be an ability to re-review the games with the reviewers don't knowing the exact timeframe, marketing or target platform of the game they are dealing with to get to more objective conclusions.

cares