Is IGN Biased?

[Mortons4ck]

IGN seems to hit pretty close to Metacritic's aggregate ratings (usually not always). So I'd say they're about as biased as anyone else.

 

[00slash00]

yes. but so is every professional review. if a review site has ads for games or mentions sponsors, you should probably take what they say with a grain of salt

 

[PureAussieGamer]

if IGN were to say COD or Halo wasnt good they would lose hordes of fans reguardless of the truth about the game. So they are kind of forced to be biased.

 

[Smooth Operator]

After Watching a Video Review of the ps3 version of Mass Effect 2 They gave it a 9.5 And one of the Cons were 'Late to PS3' Even through he talks about how this is one of the best versions with ALL the Dlc put into it. so we lost 0.5 because we were late.

Im not angry about it just seems a little unfair.

You believe the game is a perfect 10 then? Seems IGN isn't the only one biased here.
The game was good but had many flaws, so it can hardly be rated with a perfect score (and I don't think any game can, because nothing is perfect).

But going back to IGN, their business runs on money from game companies and I think it shows.
Big names drop big cash and will be getting a high score, that is why you should only look to their reviews to get the punchlines of a game and decide if it's worth looking into.
Their scores to me are as valid as a creationists points on evolution.

 

[joshuaayt]

IGN uses the eight-to-ten scale, of course it's biased. Biased... towards payouts! From Publishers! Especially big ones like EA!

Not that I'm implying anything...

But an odd, contrived reason to give it *just* less than 10 does seem sort of telling, to me. Might just be paranoid.

 

[Haelium]

Why would you ever listen to IGN? They are incredibly inconsistent on what score games get. Ever notice that they never rate a gamer lower than 85%?

IGN are terrible reviewers.

 

[Whomite]

Gamespot are much worse than IGN, if you post any form of critisim or post a constructive review on a bad game they have given a high score they will almost instantly delete it and slap you on the back of the hand. I think all these big sites like IGN and Gamespot have lost their way and need a reboot, especially when it starts to look like the people who review the games eithier don't know what they are talking about, haven't played the game enough or are biased towards the game, developer or publisher.

 

[The Lost Big Boss]

yes. IGN is very biased. have you ever noticed how strongly backed by corporate advertisements they are? it should be obvious. :/

besides that, they said InFamous is better than prototype.

no. its not. both games should be judged independently of each other as each game has its own strengths and weaknesses. shows a PS3 bias right thar.

You do know that marketing and editorial are completely separate, and that they have nothing to do with each other right? For example, Naughty Bear was being advertised on IGN strongly for a week, when it came out it got like a 3.5.

 

[shootthebandit]

It is impossible for a human to be unbiased. However there are worse extents of biase, and i've found ign to vary depending on who from ign, (and what they're reviewing).

I agree I used to think they were very biased towards 360 but now basically all PS3 stuff is done by greg miller.

I think its safe to say that noone likes jess chobot, she's not even that hot and she's just annoying

 

[WrongSprite]

Why are you making it sound like 9.5 is a shitty score?

 

[Something Amyss]

After Watching a Video Review of the ps3 version of Mass Effect 2 They gave it a 9.5 And one of the Cons were 'Late to PS3' Even through he talks about how this is one of the best versions with ALL the Dlc put into it. so we lost 0.5 because we were late.

Im not angry about it just seems a little unfair.

Actually, that seems like a fair comment. A good chunk of people have already experienced the game and it's "more of the same," technically, if you have.

That being said, IGN is biased when it disagrees with me.

 

[Mehall]

Personally I refuse to believe that a game should ever genuinely warrant a perfect score. Mostly because no game is inheritly perfect.

I dislike that viewpoint. Why have numbers on the scale you won't use? It doesn't mean it's "perfect", just that any flaws are overwhelmed in the good, or that it's due to a technical limitation outside the developers control.

 

[Cyberjester]

yes. IGN is very biased. have you ever noticed how strongly backed by corporate advertisements they are? it should be obvious. :/

besides that, they said InFamous is better than prototype.

no. its not. both games should be judged independently of each other as each game has its own strengths and weaknesses. shows a PS3 bias right thar.

I preferred Prototype to Infamous, and I'm certainly not paid by any IGN sponsers. Comparing game to game, Prototype is just better. It's polished and does well at what it wants to be, which is a fun and violent game. Not hard, not by any means. But fun.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Sorta off topic, but Id like to see Mass Effect 1 also on the PS3 so that I can play the first before I get the second game.

If I remember correctly, Microsoft has some kind of ownership of the first one. Not sure how it works, just that it won't happen. Makes me sad too.

yes. IGN is very biased. have you ever noticed how strongly backed by corporate advertisements they are? it should be obvious. :/

besides that, they said InFamous is better than prototype.

no. its not. both games should be judged independently of each other as each game has its own strengths and weaknesses. shows a PS3 bias right thar.

The fact that they were comparing them is annoying, but to be fair most other reviewers were doing similar things. Bad, but not unexpected. Picking inFamous, however, does not indicate bias. It indicates that they liked it better, for which there were several possible reasons. In fact, they tend to normally have a 360 bias.

Not only are they often biased, they usually just aren't very good reviewers. Bad Company 2: Vietnam got a 9.5 from them. Why not a ten? Because it had Fortunate Son in the game. In one menu. One fucking menu.

That pisses me off. If DICE just hadn't sent them enough hookers and cocaine for a ten, why didn't they make up something plausible for the .5? The fact that it only has a few maps? All your unlocks carry over from the main game, so if you unlocked everything already, you won't have shit to do? The M1 still sucks?

Any of those could be excusable. Not the presence of a single song, you fucktwits.

 

[weker]

yes. IGN is very biased. have you ever noticed how strongly backed by corporate advertisements they are? it should be obvious. :/

besides that, they said InFamous is better than prototype.

no. its not. both games should be judged independently of each other as each game has its own strengths and weaknesses. shows a PS3 bias right thar.

the thing is there from what i can tell they love comic book content and seeing how stylised InFamous was compared to prototype it doesn't surprise me they gave it a better score.
reviews are not biased the only time i think something is fishy is for the game radar starcraft 2 (which is more about what a 10 means ) and the halo reach score they gave (i felt any game overloaded with content like reach lp2 uc2 mw2 deserves 9 as long as something has changed substitutional)

 

[comadorcrack]

Eh, at least they're better than Gametrailers. But I hate Gametrailers mostly for the sole reason that they're giving that fucktard Michael Pachter so much attention. My god that man is stupid. But then again, the whole site is stupid.


Just look at this shit.

.... What the fuck was that....

So much fail... Head is going... to explode....!!!!

Just on a side note though. Am I the only one who gets a giggle out of Gamespot pushing the Xbox version of Dead Space 2 over the PS3 one when both visceral and EA are quite clearly pushing the PS3 version?