Of course, not everyone wants to read through a review and some prefer a summary because they have poor reading retention. For that reason, we provide a closing comments section and a final score. While the closing comments won't provide you with much detail, it offers a snapshot of our impressions of a game.
The IGN Review Scale
For more than a decade, IGN reviewed games on a 100-point scale. Meaning we gave games from a 0.1-10.0 and every digit in between. In the early days of game journalism, the emphasis was on overanalyzing games, perhaps to try and assure people of its validity as an art form.
Over the years, it's become more and more clear that most folks don't need criticism on such a microscopic level and that debating the merits of Red Dead Redemption and Mass Effect 2 is valid regardless if one received a .1 higher score.
Our goal has always been to help you make a good purchase decision and, frankly, you don't need scores broken down to such a minute level to get the point across. And we would rather that debates on which game is better (including in our own office) weren't determined by a tenth-of-a-point. If two amazing games get a 9.5, you'll know each is worth buying and the decision on which is better occurs beyond the review. Basically, we don't want reviews to end the discussion, but perhaps encourage more of them.
10.0 - Masterpiece
The pinnacle of gaming, a masterpiece may not be flawless, but it is so exceptional that it is hard to imagine a game being better. At the time of its release, this game is the not just the best the system can offer, but better than we could have expected.
Example: The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
9.0/9.5 - Amazing
One of the best games out there. When this generation of games ends, people will look back and say, "This was one of the best games made for the system." It might have a few flaws, but this is a must-buy.
Example: Sid Meier's Civilization V
8.0/8.5 - Great
If you play a lot of games, then you have got to play this one. It might not be among the very best available, but it's worth your time. If this is the type of game that appeals to you, then this one should be an automatic purchase.
Example: Rock Band 3
7.0/7.5 - Good
Sure, there are some issues, but the overall experience is still good enough to recommend. Maybe it lacks ambition or it's repetitive or has too many technical glitches, but we had fun playing it nonetheless and think you will too.
Example: Mafia II
6.0/6.5 - Okay
No one should settle for "just OK." When games cost as much as they do, then it's up to publishers to deliver some bang for our buck. And while this game is passable, it's probably only worth a rental.
Example: Tom Clancy's HAWX 2
5.0/5.5 - Mediocre
This game is on the cusp of being bad. That means that there are one or two good things about it, but an equal if not greater number of issues present. If the game sounds interesting, you might want to give it a try, but don't expect to be wowed.
Example: Final Fantasy XIV Online
4.0/4.5 - Bad
Something went wrong during development and this egg went a little rotten. There's nothing worse than a game that ends up as "bad" on our scale, because it usually means there was some potential that the developer couldn't live up to.
Example: Saw II
3.0/3.5 - Awful
Bad concept, severe technical flaws, terrible design -- these are just some of the characteristics of an awful game. Getting to the end just might be impossible, because the experience is just so terrible.
Example: Samurai Warriors 3
2.0/2.5 - Painful
It physically hurts to play this game. That's how bad it is. Like moonshine -- it could actually make you go blind.
Example: Quantum Theory
1.0/1.5 - Unbearable
The more you play, the harder it gets to continue living. There's nothing new or interesting here. Nothing exciting. And, frankly, nothing that works.
Example: The Simpsons Wrestling
0/0.5 - Disaster
One of the worst games ever made. Roger Ebert holds this game while standing on his soap box and declares it proof that games are not art.
Example: Extreme PaintBrawl
How do you determine scores?
For us, a review has two main purposes: To judge whether or not a game is worth buying and to rank it's quality among other similar titles. We look for games that are fun to play, but are also keen to find games that push the boundaries and explore new territory.
Unfortunately, there's no science behind a score, no algorithm that can be run to "get it right." It evolves as a process from an editor playing through a game, talking with others about the experience, and looking at how it stacks up against other games.
What happens to the old scores?
You'll notice that all games reviewed prior to July 26, 2010 retain their original scores (of our previous 100-point scale). We wanted to maintain the legacy of IGN's reviews. And it would be difficult to go through thousands of previous reviews and make determinations on a new score.
How do you decide who gets to review what games?
Everyone has certain types of games that interest them. Some folks love shooters and others like a good role-playing game. There are those who want to get lost exploring an open world for a hundred hours and others who want a shorter, more directed experience. Editors at IGN speak up about the games they want to play so we make sure people are playing things that interest them.
And yes, sometimes people are eager to play games that turn out to be really bad. No one wants to review just the AAA titles. It gets boring after a while to write high praise for everything.
Sometimes one person gives a game a great review, but another editor says they didn't like the game -- who's right?
The IGN review is the official statement on a games quality. It is the opinion of the reviewer, but we entrust each editor to speak for the site as a whole. That said, we would never want to silence the voice and opinion of our other editors. Though there is often a consensus in the IGN office over the quality of a game, there are always going to be dissenting voices. We think one of the things that makes IGN special is that we have an office packed with people who absolutely love playing and discussing games. We want editors to continue that discussion, even if the opinion isn't always in line with our official review.
So, to answer the question : They're both right, because each person is allowed to have their own opinion. But the IGN review is the sites official take on the game.
I see ads on IGN's site for games you review. Do advertisers affect your review scores?
Absolutely not. IGN has a very strict separation between sales and editorial. Editors are unaware of upcoming ads and promotions. It's as much a surprise to us when we see an ad on our site as it is to the readers.
Do you ever change your review scores if a game is improved after its release?
Currently we do not alter game scores even if there is a patch that fixes issues. We review games as they are "out of the box" and as you would experience it for the first time. We are always open to revisiting our review policies, especially as the games industry changes.