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

Zeratul wrote:

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

Is this really your only defense of them? That they have different reviewers? Almost all sites have different reviewers yet they are much more consistant than IGN is. Reviews are basically glorified opinions looked at an objective sense. I was complaining about HOW the games are scored. They say GT5 is a "10/10 sim wrapped in a 5/10 game" when the majority of the categories, including fucking GAMEPLAY, scored 9.0+. Even reviews from the same reviewer don't feel very consistant and alot of them don't feel very objective. All of the COD reviews are done atleast a couple days prior to the game actually launching and they usually test the multiplayer on system link. Reviewing games early takes away some of the credibility for their reviews since they haven't actually experience what the online connection is like. I wasn't fucking complaining about how they give X game a higher score than Y game because of so and so, and the fact that you did shows that you either didn't read it or just skimmed through it to find something typical about it to defend them.

Website journalist can't afford to make a huge mistake. They can't afford to say something completely untrue to screw with their credibility. They aren't making user reviews for metacritic or some small gaming forum. They are making it for a well-known, huge website and get paid for their work. Besides, if a reviewer makes a mistake by saying something that isn't true, other staff members should help each other out in order to keep a good reputation. They rarely do though. You know why? They want their reviews to stand out. They don't give a shit about the quality of their writing. As long as they say something controversal they will get cheap hits and more people visiting their site. Saying Mass Effect 2 is factually better than Uncharted 2? Hell ya that's going to cause a shit storm! But at the same time, the number of users at their site skyrockets. You can't tell me these BS articles are just honest mistakes.

IGN GT5 review
Presentation - 7
Graphics - 9
Sound - 8
Gameplay - 9
Lasting Appeal - 9

That averages up to an 8.4 so when you round it to the nearest 0 or 5 (as they review in a 20 point scale) it ends up as an 8.5 which is what GT5 got. 10/10 sim wrapped in a 5/10 game was not meant to be taken literally. They meant it's a great simulator but there were a lot of problems that impede it as a game.

BlackStigma wrote:

IGN GT5 review
Presentation - 7
Graphics - 9
Sound - 8
Gameplay - 9
Lasting Appeal - 9

That averages up to an 8.4 so when you round it to the nearest 0 or 5 (as they review in a 20 point scale) it ends up as an 8.5 which is what GT5 got. 10/10 sim wrapped in a 5/10 game was not meant to be taken literally. They meant it's a great simulator but there were a lot of problems that impede it as a game.

Then they should've said that. "It's a 10/10 sim wrapped in a 5/10 game" suggests that it's a great sim but a horrible game.

TRF wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

IGN GT5 review
Presentation - 7
Graphics - 9
Sound - 8
Gameplay - 9
Lasting Appeal - 9

That averages up to an 8.4 so when you round it to the nearest 0 or 5 (as they review in a 20 point scale) it ends up as an 8.5 which is what GT5 got. 10/10 sim wrapped in a 5/10 game was not meant to be taken literally. They meant it's a great simulator but there were a lot of problems that impede it as a game.

Then they should've said that. "It's a 10/10 sim wrapped in a 5/10 game" suggests that it's a great sim but a horrible game.

^This

And again, there are other examples. For Crysis 2 they gave the graphics of the 360/PC version a 9.5 while giving the PS3 version an 8.5. Was the graphical difference between the 360 and PS3 versions really an entire point when LoT and DF declared that they look damn near identical? And if so shouldn't the PC version be a 10 considering even the medium settings look better than the console versions?

IGN is stupid.

Sovereign Alan wrote:

TRF wrote:

BlackStigma wrote:

IGN GT5 review
Presentation - 7
Graphics - 9
Sound - 8
Gameplay - 9
Lasting Appeal - 9

That averages up to an 8.4 so when you round it to the nearest 0 or 5 (as they review in a 20 point scale) it ends up as an 8.5 which is what GT5 got. 10/10 sim wrapped in a 5/10 game was not meant to be taken literally. They meant it's a great simulator but there were a lot of problems that impede it as a game.

Then they should've said that. "It's a 10/10 sim wrapped in a 5/10 game" suggests that it's a great sim but a horrible game.

^This

And again, there are other examples. For Crysis 2 they gave the graphics of the 360/PC version a 9.5 while giving the PS3 version an 8.5. Was the graphical difference between the 360 and PS3 versions really an entire point when LoT and DF declared that they look damn near identical? And if so shouldn't the PC version be a 10 considering even the medium settings look better than the console versions?

That is quite stupid. Crysis 2 looks the same on 360 and PS3. It's the PC version that stands out with the better graphics. Even so, the difference is not worth an entire point.

Fuck sites like this, anyway. Review scores are always dumb. This is why every game needs a demo so you can form an opinion yourself. People see a 5/10 or something and think WELL I'M NOT GETTING THAT GAME but it could have been entirely possible that they loved the fuck out of it.

Aww I was hoping for a massive WallofWords to enjoy before I go nap time

Your rants are always awesome!

@ All who are complaining about IGN

Get over it.You dont like them?Then use gamespot or some other site.I have found IGN reviews give off useful information about the game.I also found the site to me organized and the news section organized.They also give good coverage

I mean cmon guys, complaining about a review score?A point difference between versions?Dont you have anything better to rant about or have you run out of ideas?

And alan, if a reviewer says "ME2 is better than UC2", its just his damn oppinion.Doesnt mean hes trying to get views or whatever.Its possible hes just trying to get views, but that doesnt make it true.

People complain about small stuff a little way too much.This is why I hate the online gaming community, they nitpick on everything.

^^

Too bad this is about what Alan thinks, not what YOU think.

GTFO.

Zeratul wrote:

@ All who are complaining about IGN

Get over it.You dont like them?Then use gamespot or some other site.I have found IGN reviews give off useful information about the game.I also found the site to me organized and the news section organized.They also give good coverage

I mean cmon guys, complaining about a review score?A point difference between versions?Dont you have anything better to rant about or have you run out of ideas?

And alan, if a reviewer says "ME2 is better than UC2", its just his damn oppinion.Doesnt mean hes trying to get views or whatever.Its possible hes just trying to get views, but that doesnt make it true.

People complain about small stuff a little way too much.This is why I hate the online gaming community, they nitpick on everything.

You're being a hypocrite. By telling us out complaints aren't valid you are saying that our opinion of IGN is wrong. It's the same arguement you are using . I myself stopped using IGN for a while. This rant was more for entertainment purposes because I always like to see the different reactions I get, but it still was in a sense educational to those that thought IGN is a very reliable source for gaming reviews.

That "ME2 is better than UC2" article was all BS to get attention and did not truely reflect what the IGN staff felt about those games. They even admitted in that very same arguement that ME2 and UC2 are incomparable. They were simply trolling people who were complaining about the .1 difference between UC2's score and ME2's score.

Reaper wrote:

I dont even bother with reviews anymore, all of them have descendded into troll reviewing to get hits....that or they actually dont have a fucking clue what they are talking about.

If you are even remotely interested in a game just viewing screenshots, dev diary's, video clips and such stuff gives YOU a better idea of the game than some jackass "reviewer" whos just out to trash a game to get page hits.

I like reviewers that, for example, if they didn't like Killzone, would say something along the lines of, "I'm not a big fan of Killzone, but if you liked Killzone 2 then you'll like Killzone 3," instead of "This game is shit and the series is shit."

As a reviewer, it's much better to tell your audience what kind of people would like the game even if you didn't.

I like IGN because of the daily fix, IGN hype and all that, but recently I've noticed a lot of inconsistancy with their reviews. Half the time they're spot on, the other half of the time the reviews are complete fucking shit. I just read the Magna Carta 2 review. They accuse it of being the same as any other Eastern RPG about 50 times and give it a 6.8, yet whenever the new COD or Madden comes out they give it a 9.

I see what you did with the title

But I only use IGN for the Daily Fix, their reviews are dumb as fuck.

why are you people bitching about reviews? who fucking cares what ign thinks..i watch their reviews..if i disagree with them..does that mean i fucking hate them? no..its their own opinion while i have mine

Pein wrote:

why are you people bitching about reviews? who fucking cares what ign thinks..i watch their reviews..if i disagree with them..does that mean i fucking hate them? no..its their own opinion while i have mine

Because they'll give dog shit reasons for voting a game down sometimes. I can't tell you how many times they'll say something along the lines of "it's nothing new", "a lot of the game mechanics have been done before", "you've played this before", but those comments are surprisingly unmentioned when it comes to reviewing some other games like COD or Madden.

TRF wrote:

Reaper wrote:

I dont even bother with reviews anymore, all of them have descendded into troll reviewing to get hits....that or they actually dont have a fucking clue what they are talking about.

If you are even remotely interested in a game just viewing screenshots, dev diary's, video clips and such stuff gives YOU a better idea of the game than some jackass "reviewer" whos just out to trash a game to get page hits.

I like reviewers that, for example, if they didn't like Killzone, would say something along the lines of, "I'm not a big fan of Killzone, but if you liked Killzone 2 then you'll like Killzone 3," instead of "This game is shit and the series is shit."

As a reviewer, it's much better to tell your audience what kind of people would like the game even if you didn't.

Like CGR. One of the VERY few good reviewers now-a-days.

Pein wrote:

why are you people bitching about reviews? who fucking cares what ign thinks..i watch their reviews..if i disagree with them..does that mean i fucking hate them? no..its their own opinion while i have mine

IGN is widely popular so everything they do or say has an impact on the masses. If they think a game sucks then that opinion will be echoing across millions and it dramatically affects the game purchase decisions.

They are suppose to be professional about it but alot of times they aren't. They say alot of ignorant shit in there reviews for hits rather then try to deliver an objective review of a game.

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

TRF wrote:

Reaper wrote:

I dont even bother with reviews anymore, all of them have descendded into troll reviewing to get hits....that or they actually dont have a fucking clue what they are talking about.

If you are even remotely interested in a game just viewing screenshots, dev diary's, video clips and such stuff gives YOU a better idea of the game than some jackass "reviewer" whos just out to trash a game to get page hits.

I like reviewers that, for example, if they didn't like Killzone, would say something along the lines of, "I'm not a big fan of Killzone, but if you liked Killzone 2 then you'll like Killzone 3," instead of "This game is shit and the series is shit."

As a reviewer, it's much better to tell your audience what kind of people would like the game even if you didn't.

Like CGR. One of the VERY few good reviewers now-a-days.

Yup, CGR was what I had in mind while typing that post.

TRF wrote:

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

TRF wrote:

Reaper wrote:

I dont even bother with reviews anymore, all of them have descendded into troll reviewing to get hits....that or they actually dont have a fucking clue what they are talking about.

If you are even remotely interested in a game just viewing screenshots, dev diary's, video clips and such stuff gives YOU a better idea of the game than some jackass "reviewer" whos just out to trash a game to get page hits.

I like reviewers that, for example, if they didn't like Killzone, would say something along the lines of, "I'm not a big fan of Killzone, but if you liked Killzone 2 then you'll like Killzone 3," instead of "This game is shit and the series is shit."

As a reviewer, it's much better to tell your audience what kind of people would like the game even if you didn't.

Like CGR. One of the VERY few good reviewers now-a-days.

Yup, CGR was what I had in mind while typing that post.

He does the greatest reviews. In depth, and no scores. He just says what he thinks.

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

TRF wrote:

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

TRF wrote:

Reaper wrote:

I dont even bother with reviews anymore, all of them have descendded into troll reviewing to get hits....that or they actually dont have a fucking clue what they are talking about.

If you are even remotely interested in a game just viewing screenshots, dev diary's, video clips and such stuff gives YOU a better idea of the game than some jackass "reviewer" whos just out to trash a game to get page hits.

I like reviewers that, for example, if they didn't like Killzone, would say something along the lines of, "I'm not a big fan of Killzone, but if you liked Killzone 2 then you'll like Killzone 3," instead of "This game is shit and the series is shit."

As a reviewer, it's much better to tell your audience what kind of people would like the game even if you didn't.

Like CGR. One of the VERY few good reviewers now-a-days.

Yup, CGR was what I had in mind while typing that post.

He does the greatest reviews. In depth, and no scores. He just says what he thinks.

And he always finds someone who'll like the game.

Who's' CGR?

DukemNukem43 wrote:

Who's' CGR?

https://www.youtube.com/InecomCompany

Classic Game Room reviews games, toys, arcade machines, consoles, controllers, and even some game-related snacks. He reviews both new and old games, going all the way back to the Vectrex (his favorite console). He's pretty chill and funny and isn't too snobby with his reviews.

TRF wrote:

DukemNukem43 wrote:

Who's' CGR?

https://www.youtube.com/InecomCompany

Classic Game Room reviews games, toys, arcade machines, consoles, controllers, and even some game-related snacks. He reviews both new and old games, going all the way back to the Vectrex (his favorite console). He's pretty chill and funny and isn't too snobby with his reviews.

Oh, I know he is know. Yeah, he's really good. I like some of his reviews. Not my favorite gamer though.