Hellblade and Jim simply found themselves in a perfect storm resulting in the initial score. There have been many discussions by both games media and games media how the review scale (should) work, many people suggesting that a 1 should be reserved to unplayable or unfinishable broken games. But not taken in consideration was what should be done when that game was in fact good, and the progression halting bug be a fringe case. Jim didn't didn't derive any pleasure from giving Hellblade a 1. Rather, him being so frustrated by the bug, penning up his review in anger, combined with what he himself has said about the review scale, is what did make him swing to a 1.
Had he stuck with his initial score, that would be totally fine. Outside of his score, the review was honest about the game and Jim's experience with it. Him later changing his score is equally fine, as the review didn't really change, but he changed how to evaluate what Hellblade DID bring to the table.
Bringing this thing around to this weeks episode, it's actually funny to hear Jim talk about the fact that getting rid of publishers will allow for greater "artistic integrity". Would Jim have had to report to a publisher/editor, or have had his review run past his peers, would probably have resulted in less "journalistic integrity" and not having published his original score.
However, utmost respect to how Jim dealt with the situation, being open and honest about it. Everybody butthurt over the initial score, or thinking Jim changed it because of underlying politics can ram their cramped sphincters over a comically large purple dildo bat.