Doesn't IGN constantly give every COD a even better score? Then aren't they the ones that said Second Son was just "more of the same"? Didn't they give Mass Effect 3 a great score forgetting about what we were promised about the ending...and then what we actually got?
Don't review sites have to keep up their end of the bargain for the advertising?
With all these things and others....why should I believe that anything they do should not be questioned?
Edit: again....I'm not talking about the score...I'm talking about the integrity as a whole. Thats where my problem lies and why anything they do will be second guessed by me....including this.
Regarding the score AND the integrity....his familiarity to the xbox could cloud his judgement towards the game....it's only natural.
IGN's PlayStation coverage is stellar with Greg Miller and Colin Moriarty, definitely the best personalities in gaming journalism.
Let me show you what an IGNs reviews editor said when he full on attacked ANGRY JOE on twitter out of the blue.
Angry joe in his review stated that he thought the hype for titanfall was being manufactured by the media and he provided quotes in the video. Joe decided to tweet to his followers about watch dogs because he was going to interview someone from ubisoft.
To IGN, apparently a game that is 8.9 is a great game, a 9.0 is an "AMAZING" game. The point? IGN are a lot more juvenile than you think they are. Remember this is the guy that "EDITS" the reviews, so if he doesn't like it he changes it. This probably touched a nerve because it exposed ign.