Silent Hill got blasted to shreds and before than, so did I Am Alive. Look, let us be honest, these games aren't top tier, but they're far from being an horrible piece of crap like IGN calls them.
What is a game inferior to 5, for you? To me, and most people, it means that it's simply broken and unplayable. A game that is downright busted, with less than sub-par graphics, bad control response and horrible level design, if not downright unfinished. You could say, '' No! These games deserve a 1 out of ten! ''. But actually, no.
Reviews needs to be impartial, with only a hint of opinions. And if the opinions are shown within the reviews, they must not reflect on the final score. Say, you think ME3 is an horrible game because, well, it's just not your cup of tea. Would you rate it 6 out of 10? Or a proper score, because you still see that even though it's not for you, it might be great for others? I think reviews should go with the later.
NG3 is yet another case on that matter. I think IGN are boldly trying to do something with their reviews, as if someone told them '' look, we need more traffic. If you just give an 8, people won't read the review, they'll just far forward to the conclusion to validate their purchase and that's it''. But if you give it a direct 9.5 or 10, people will read through it. Same goes with the lesser titles. Instead of handing over a 6 or 7, pulling a 3.0 WILL bring more readers, thus making the site more profitable. People will want to read it. People will want to talk about it.
Just look at NG3"s graphic evaluation. Does it really deserve 4.0? Then, if NG3 is a 4.0, Gears 3 must be a 6 at best. He gives out a 2.5 for the gameplay. Is the game unplayable? Does it glitches in every wall? Is the framerate horrible? No, it isn't. It's actually Ninja Gaiden once more, with a different take. See where I'm going? This guy is evidently lowering the number just for the sake of being more dramatic. There's nothing impartial about this, it's just him, raging at the game and destroying everything he can over it.
That guy was enraged at NG3 and went all emotional over it, before slapping it a 3. He just can't back up his opinion with facts, because the facts are against everything he said.
I'm not inventing this out of the blue, just check IGN's last reviews, you'll see for yourself. They're really trying to go '' Destructoid '' with their super harsh or super glorified reviews, regardless of the actual product.
Why am I saying that reviews should not be a direct opinion? Because opinions don't really matter. Facts, on the other hand, do. I, myself, write reviews for a french website, and I recently reviews Uncharted : Golden Abyss. To be honest, I thought it was a really bad game. How did I score it? With a 8 out of 10. Simply because the game had numerous qualities that, despite my initial dislike for the game, could not ignore. The game is beautiful, it plays well, the shooting is more than functional and has a really lengthy adventure. What if I slapped it a 4 out of 10, as my inner self would prefer to do? I'd be emotional over it, which would be wrong.
Do judges get emotional when they evaluate a case? Maybe so, but never enough to modify the impartial facts.
Bottom line? IGN probably tries to be dramatic to make more profit in the end. Don't take that 3.0 too seriously. It just, in reality, means a 7.5.
EDIT: I majorly screwed up. When I compared NG3 to Gears3, I meant to compare the graphical prowess of the games... not the games themselves. Sorry for the major shitstorm it caused.