The first question of whether the review should have been published without a score is the one I'm most inclined to agree with.

The second being, if the game isn’t able to be finished, isn’t that worth less than a 4.0? And the third being “I’m having no issues, the score isn’t reflective of my experience” which is less of a question and more of a confused statement, usually made by those who feel uncomfortable something they have spent money on is being questioned.

The first being should the review have been published without a score, in order to reflect the unfinished nature of the game?. Now on the face of things, this is a very low score considering the average at the time of writing is a 79 on PC, but for those who bothered to read the review as opposed to simply jumping to the score, Dan explains that his experience was a good one until the bugs made the game impossible to finish. Having been unable to complete the game, Dan filed his review and gave the game a 4.0. Upon receiving a second save from the developer, Dan encountered this once again. In this review, Dan explains that while he enjoyed his time with the game, he eventually encountered a game breaking bug that halted his progress. On the 10th of May IGN’s Executive Editor of Reviews published his review of Arkane studios recently released dark action-shooter Prey for PC. Prologue: In order to fully understand this piece, I implore you to read IGN’s review of Prey for PC by Dan Stapleton.

Best games of 2017 pc ign