I was aware of the contest (didn't vote), and it doesn't bother me at all that Skyward Sword won because the contest itself was beyond flawed. The four categories of controls, bosses, gear, and story don't add up to a full game at all. I have no idea what IGN was thinking when they placed a fourth of the selection criteria each on bosses or gear. They clearly went with series specific criteria with the inclusion of those two categories, but then they leave out no brainer categories like dungeons, sidequests, characters, overworld, and music. I know some of those categories are no doubt in favor of Skyward Sword, but what was IGN thinking. They put together a big contest collecting 113,000 votes but don't bother making the contest itself even somewhat logical.
On top of that gigantic problem, there was also some bias as A_Link_In_Time hinted at. In addition to the video/contest itself, there's also the fact that the contest started only 31 days after Skyward was released. If IGN actually wanted a contest (instead of a celebration of Skyward Sword) they would have waited much longer before comparing the two games. I didn't expect them to wait though because they couldn't even wait past the first sentence of their review of Skyward Sword. When you are reviewing a game, is it so important to declare it superior to past installments rather than actually talk about the game itself? I wouldn't have a problem with IGN if they started their review with "Skyward Sword is a masterpiece" or "Skyward Sword is beyond perfection," but they had to put a subtitle of "Ocarina of Time has met its match" followed by the first sentence of "Skyward Sword is the greatest Zelda game ever created." Considering that I hadn't played the game before, I believed them and that resulted in slight disappointment upon my playing the game. So I guess I'm just really mad at IGN.