In the new Game Informer review for Singularity, the reviewer jokingly says, "Singularity is more Bioshock 2 than Bioshock 2." I know the reviewer was joking, but he continues to say that "Singularity's greatest shared quality to Bioshock is that gamers want new experiences and not just more of the same thing." He was obviously taking shots at Bioshock 2 and how it really did nothing new from the first game.

GI gave Singularity a 8.5, which is a good score and the same score here at GS gave the game.

My main example is IGN's review for both games. They ripped Singularity apart for lacking originality and imagination and being just another by-the-numbers FPS. They point out the influences from Bioshock and System Shock of course, which is probably why they gave Singularity a lower score because it's closely similar to those games. They gave the game a 7.0. Yet at the end, they say the game is solid and good. Is this a contradiction? Why is the game scored so low if they think the game is good? Is it scored lower because it was influenced by other games?

In contrast, IGN praised Bioshock 2 and gave the game a 9.2, even though they say it's basically more of the same as the first one with some improvements. Isn't that the same thing as lacking originality and imagination even though it's a sequel?

The IGN review for Singularity is a huge difference to the Game Informer review. I'm just wondering if some reviewers are giving a pass to sequels just because they're pressured from the hype and legacy of the first game especially if the predecessor was highly praised. Whereas, when a good new IP comes out, they criticize it for lacking originality and copying from other popular games even though they admit it's still a solid game. Why this double standard in reviews? Aren't sequels that do nothing new as the first game basically the same thing as being unoriginal? Same thing happened with Darksiders from most reviewers. They say the game is good and fun, but they gave it a low score just because they thought it was inspired from Zelda and God of War. Is that really a fair way to review a game?

It's a little hypocritical to me.

And one last thing, do you think reviews like this is the reason why new IPs are struggling to sell? Think about it, when a new IP comes out and we know nothing about it, who do we look to? The reviews! I believe reviews can influence sales, like that recent analyst said. I think it's something to think about.

I think that comparing disparate reviews is very tricky business.  Unless they were in the same genre and written by the same person you can't really compare them at all.  Like if someone wrote a review of both Prototype and Infamous -- then you could compare them to see if the dude was being fair to both games.