IGN has never given a Call of Duty below 6 or above 9. It's a cron job.

Every November, like clockwork, a miracle occurs. Activision ships a Call of Duty. IGN reviews it. The score lands somewhere between 6 and 8.5. The heat death of the universe will arrive before IGN gives a mainline CoD below a 6 or above a 9. You could set your watch to it if watches still existed and hadn't been replaced by whatever Activision is selling next quarter.

This time around, IGN gave Modern Warfare 3 a 6/10 and acted like they'd committed an act of radical journalism. Simon Cardy practically put on a flak jacket to deliver the news. 'It feels like a missed opportunity,' he wrote, which is IGN-speak for 'this game was built in 14 months by a studio that was clearly crying for help and we're still going to round up because Activision buys full-page takeover ads from us every November.'

Here's the thing — this game shipped with recycled Modern Warfare 2 (2009) maps and a campaign that clocks in at roughly the same length as IGN's editorial independence: about four hours if you're generous. A 6/10 for a full-price AAA reheated casserole isn't brave. It's the bare minimum dressed up as courage. GameSpot gave it a 4. That's what an honest score looks like. IGN's 6 is just a 4 that went through corporate compliance.

The annual Call of Duty review is not criticism. It is a ceremony. A ritual sacrifice of journalistic standards at the altar of Q4 ad revenue. IGN doesn't review Call of Duty — they process it, like a factory stamping approval on widgets. The score changes by a point or two each year to maintain the illusion of editorial thought, but the conclusion is always the same: it's Call of Duty, and that's apparently enough.