The Rant: The IGN-O-RANT [Episode 4]

Let me just say that IGN is by far one of the worst gaming websites on the internet. Why? Oh where to start!

1st Point:

If you think IGN has been giving you decent, consistant, and objective reviews then you my friend, as Flynn would say, "have been played." Their videogame review segment of their site is a complete mess. Why? Multiple reasons really. Alot of their reviews are done much earlier than when the games actually launch. Call of Duty is a good example of this. Ask virtually ANY COD fan what they like most about COD and I would bet my mother's life that they would say "multiplayer." This is how important multiplayer is to the COD franchise. So reviews that are done before the game community actually plays it are not reliable, at all. Connection and game balance are very strong factors into making multiplayer fun. Coincidentally, game exploits, connection issues, and game imbalances usually pop up AFTER the community gets their hands on it. This renders basically anything they have to say about COD's multiplayer in their reviews inaccurate. They did the same thing with Gears 2. They reviewed the game early and declared that Gears 2 has buttery smooth online play. They either completely ignored bluntly obvious issues or just downplayed them as small issues. Check this out:

(From their Gears of War 2 review)

Quote :

The matchmaking for Gears of War 2 is totally different from what was available in Gears 1 and works very well.

Quote :

Not as much as the first game's host advantage epidemic or buggy gameplay, but there are certainly remnants of that slightly defunct base. I encountered a hint of host advantage and considerable lag every so often, which was disappointing.

Funny thing is, THEY DON'T EVEN STICK TO WHAT THEY SAY:

(From their Gears of War 3 preview)

Quote :

When Gears of War 2 launched in 2008, matchmaking was painfully slow and sometimes failed entirely. Difficulties with the network code exacerbated the previous game's lopsided host/client-based connection system.

Another minor issue to this is that their scoring system is largely inconsistant and flawed. People might have their own theories to how IGN's scoring system works, but the fact is no one really does know how everything averages out.

(From their Gran Turismo 5 review)

Quote :

Gran Turismo 5 is a 10/10 simulator wrapped up in a 5/10 game – driving is as exhilarating as anything that’s gone before, and slavish obsession with the minutiae of many of its cars ensure it's an encyclopaedia of automotive delights. Its brilliance on the track, however is matched by its sloppiness off of it, and there’s a lack of polish that would at one time have seemed sacrilegious to the series. Ultimately its driving wins out to ensure that it’s still a great game, but it leaves that nagging doubt; this could have been a masterpiece were it not for the fact that Polyphony was so absorbed with the detail that it took its eye off the ball.

Overall score: 8.5

How do they even figure these scores out? They even fucking said "it's a 10/10 sim wrapped up in a 5/10 game" doesn't that suggest that it's overall score should be 7.5? Also how is it a 5/10 game when the lowest scoring category is "presentation" which is a 7.0 while almost every other category got a 9.0+? Jesus...I don't even..

2nd point:

They make a huge number of truely BS articles to stimulate fanboy wars and to get hits. By far the best example of this is their"Mass Effect 2 is better than Uncharted 2" article:

Quote :

Some laughed and read comments aloud, others mentioned that a comparison was silly because Mass Effect 2 and Uncharted 2 are completely different types of games.....The thing that a lot of people missed, however, is that Mass Effect 2 is indeed a better game than Uncharted 2, and I don't know how readers can be so blinded by their fanboyism to deny it.

Or they say controversal things to again stimulate this non-existant console wars even in their reviews which are supose to be 100% professional and objective.

From their Crysis 2 review:

Quote :

Crysis 2 on Xbox 360 has taken the crown for best graphics in a console game.

3rd Point:

They pretend to know how game technology works. Back in the past they use to do a "Head2Head" segment. In their GTA4 Head2Head. They stated that GTA4 on the PS3 has better "anti-aliasing passages" than the 360 version, claiming that the game looked "smoother" on the Sony console.



When later it was confirmed by multiple sources that the PS3 version of GTA4 had been running at a sub-HD resolution with no anti-aliasing at all. Also, they say a bunch of shit like Mass Effect 2 on the PS3 is much better than the 360/PC versions. When DF and LoT claim that it looks on-par. The point is they aren't LoT or DF. They don't have the necessary capture equipment to make all those calls about which version of said game is better.

So IGN staff, I have practically reviewed your site. It would only be fair to use your scoring methods and review style.

Closing Comments:

Quote :

IGN is a terrible gaming website. Their review segment is a big fucking joke. They make a bunch of BS articles and claims to get cheap hits. And worst of all they don't even stay consistant with what they say. What I have provided is only small sample of the examples I could have put in this rant. I could have made a novel on how much of a fail IGN is as a whole.

Quote :

Review Segment: Inconsistant scoring and inaccurate reviews due to jumping the gun to early about certain aspects of games (multiplayer) makes this segment a sham. Gamers deserve better. ----2.0

Generating of bullshit to get cheap hits: Excellent, doesn't get any better than this. -----10.0

Objective minded-ness - Or lack there of ------1.5

Overall score:

9.5

I like IGN.

BlackStigma wrote:

I like IGN.

First I was like:




Then I was like:



Then I was like:

I use IGN mainly for news, but I don't really take their reviews into account all that often. Also, MyIGN is a cool social network.

BlackStigma wrote:

I like IGN.

I actually have to second this.. :study:

You can't spell IGNORANCE without IGN.

It's a shame you can't trust reviewers anymore.

I don't care if they have multiple reviewers but this is just failure in my eyes.

http://ie.xbox360.ign.com/objects/143/14328887.html

Nothing wrong with that, but now look at this. . . . . . .

http://ie.xbox360.ign.com/articles/113/1130705p1.html

Just, fail.

Stoney wrote:

I don't care if they have multiple reviewers but this is just failure in my eyes.

http://ie.xbox360.ign.com/objects/143/14328887.html

Nothing wrong with that, but now look at this. . . . . . .

http://ie.xbox360.ign.com/articles/113/1130705p1.html

Just, fail.

LOL

Ahhh the inconsistancy.

The Fable III thing didn't bother me because it's two different writers on opposite sides of the world. Notice one is Erik Brudvig, who most likely lives in California because that's where IGN is located, and the other is Cam Shea, who most likely lives in Australia because he/she writes for IGN AU.

What's that new writer they have? I forgot his name, but anyone remember how asshurt he was when Reddit bashed on him for legitimate reasons?

I hate IGN simply for that guy.

TheUltimateDouche wrote:

What's that new writer they have? I forgot his name, but anyone remember how asshurt he was when Reddit bashed on him for legitimate reasons?

I hate IGN simply for that guy.

I think that was hilary goldstein. Yeah he sucks.

Great article/rant thing, Alan. Very well written. I enjoyed that. You're so right, IGN is a shambles. :S

Toxicmaniac wrote:

TheUltimateDouche wrote:

What's that new writer they have? I forgot his name, but anyone remember how asshurt he was when Reddit bashed on him for legitimate reasons?

I hate IGN simply for that guy.

I think that was hilary goldstein. Yeah he sucks.

No, it wasn't him.

They all fucking suck.

Sovereign Alan wrote:

They all fucking suck.

yup. They also make terrible April Fools Day articles.

I use ign for news.

See, i hate when people on here talk like IGN is one person.IGN has many different reviewers and some are better than others.Some reviewers on there are actually really good, other arent as good or completly suck

Hell, gamespot has had the worst review ive seen before.Look at Halo Wars review, utterly terrible.So by your guy's logic, just because Halo's wars review was a fail it must mean all the other reviews are fail

Zeratul wrote:

I use ign for news.

See, i hate when people on here talk like IGN is one person.IGN has many different reviewers and some are better than others.Some reviewers on there are actually really good, other arent as good or completly suck

Hell, gamespot has had the worst review ive seen before.Look at Halo Wars review, utterly terrible.So by your guy's logic, just because Halo's wars review was a fail it must mean all the other reviews are fail

I didn't use just one example. I used many. And I can pull up many instances of their inconsistancy.

Joystiq & /r/Gaming > Any other gaming news site.

The only good thing about IGN is mega64.

Toxicmaniac wrote:

The only good thing about IGN is mega64.

I'm pretty sure Mega64 was independent and IGN just struck up a contract with them, much like how GameTrailers has a contract with AVGN.

Sovereign Alan wrote:

Zeratul wrote:

I use ign for news.

See, i hate when people on here talk like IGN is one person.IGN has many different reviewers and some are better than others.Some reviewers on there are actually really good, other arent as good or completly suck

Hell, gamespot has had the worst review ive seen before.Look at Halo Wars review, utterly terrible.So by your guy's logic, just because Halo's wars review was a fail it must mean all the other reviews are fail

I didn't use just one example. I used many. And I can pull up many instances of their inconsistancy.

And?There are many more reviwwers and novelists on IGN then the examples you showed.Hell, even if a guy was responsible for a mistake you showed, that doesnt mean hes always bad.

People will say "IGN are hypocrits because they gave homefront a 7/10 for being nothing new yet they give MW2 a 9/10" when really both reviews were different oppinions of two people.Maybe if that homefront reviewer played MW2 he would have given it a 5/10.

There was only 1 total mess up ive seen on ign when it comes to reviews.And that is the 10/10 score for GTA IV

They should start general consensus's of what the score of a game is. Instead of having 2 separate people doing 2 separate games.