OK, so I'm just going to throw this out there, this partnership raises serious journalistic integrity questions.   I don't care how it's pitched, or spun, but something should have clicked, and IGN should not have partnered with GameStop. 
 
So, personally, I'm OK with games media going to lavished review / preview events.  It's a perk of being in the media.  It's OK, that Giant Bomb Crew didn't tell us that they went to the Black Ops Review event in LA (or did they, I can't remember, but I remember them being there).   Whatever, it was Call of Duty: Black Ops, the biggest game of the year, coming from one of the largest publishers, this review event was bound to happen.  The same is true of Epic Mickey, there was a review event in Disneyland.  What about the Assassin’s Creed 2 event in Italy?   You could argue that the Assassin’s Creed Italy event was needed because the first game wasn’t that great, but it reviewed well and Ubisoft wanted something extravagant to get everyone’s attention to prove that there second game was far better.  
 
Which would you rather have, Jeff either having a fun and enjoyable review on the day of release or having to wait a week after its release, for a Call of Duty review?   Many of the smaller video game review sites just can't afford not to attend review events.   You need readers and page views to get ad support so at the end of the day you'll have a pay check.   All a journalist has is their integrity.   Once a journalist has lost their integrity, because money was slid under the table, a games journalist doesn't have a job anymore.   Why, because no one reads or trust their reviews or points of view.   Is a Mickey Mouse hat worth that?   Losing a job in the industry they love.
 
Back to the main point.  
 
The majority of IGN's readers go there for the number score.   While we might read the review and want to learn all of the games issues, the unsuspecting causal gamer (or parent, grandparent, etc.) will see a high number score and think it's a good game.   How much would raising a half point cost?   What about an extra 1 point?  How many sales would that extra point bring in?  It would benefit both the GameStop and the publisher.  
 
You might be thinking to yourself, how is this deal different than advertising Halo: Reach, or NFS:HP on a gaming site?   The truth is, is that it's not.   The advertisers want to advertise to those who are interested in their product, the gaming web sites want to have advertisements their readers will click on and generate them some revenue.  If that's as far as it goes, everything is gravy.  It's when the publishers and advertisers start asking for a better score that an issue that arrives.  "If you don't give us a 5 five star rating we'll never send you a game again."  That's on the publisher / advertiser and they should be called out on that.  I remember when Assassin's Creed came out, and (redacted) didn't give the game a great score so Ubisoft stop sending them review copies of their games.  It happens.
 
I guess, at some point, it's far better to be open and frank with your readers / listeners because you don't want it to come out as some shadowy deal, on the other hand just announcing it will immediately raise red flags.  Maybe the best solution is to not be in bed with the brick and mortar retailers. 
 
Bottom line is this, it is all about money; adverting money.  I hope IGN doesn't tweak there review scores for money, but they sure threw out their journalistic integrity on this one.