Is IGN Biased?

[Ph33nix]

yes next topic

er um aaahhh filler for the rest of the post uuuuuhhhhhhhhhh ok that should be enough filler
but seriously yeah bug budget=big score

 

[squid5580]

They are completely and utterly biased. They gave Damnation (a crap game but at least it tried to be inventive) a 2.5. Then they gave Terminator Salvation a crap short game that tried nothing new over 5. An above average score. That was the last time I took IGN seriously.

 

[P3LICANT]

a whole company cant be biased as it is up to the personal opinion of the writer in question, yes, some writers can be biased towards things, but overall this affects the review in a very small way, they may just word it differently than other reviews. and i have seen the mass effect 2 on ps3 review and the score it came out with is close or the same as the xbox version (i cant really remember the score for the xbox version).

 

[Popido]

They're paid. They dont have opinions.

Find some guy with good taste instead.

 

[demoman_chaos]

I know they gave Bayonetta a higher score on the 360 despite them being 100% identical. Most all multiplatform games get higher scores on the 360 despite being the exact same.

If I remember right, they gave Kinectimals the same score as GT5 if that tells you anything.
Microsoft's money goes a long way.

 

[Brawndo]

They need to get rid of "exclusives" for gaming magazines, because this almost guarantees a high score for a title. PC Gamer got an exclusive for Civilization V and gave it a very high score, but gamers were much more mixed in their reactions

 

[CheckD3]

Every reviewer has a personal bias. Going into a genre they don't like, or they do, they'll know what to look for, or what not to also look for

Taking points off cause it's late? Retarded shit I say, bull shit I say

 

[Jonny1188]

I don't think they're biased in the sense of they're being paid off or something, I just think they're god awful writers and the whole staff needs to be fired and replaced.

 

[meowchef]

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.

Never going to happen, Since Microsoft owns the publishing rights.

Damn that sucks

why dont they have it for ME2. Not that Im complaining, but it seems a little wierd.

Dont know

Because after Microsoft published Mass Effect, EA bought BioWare Corp, published Mass Effect on the PC, then published Mass Effect 2.

 

[meowchef]

I know they gave Bayonetta a higher score on the 360 despite them being 100% identical. Most all multiplatform games get higher scores on the 360 despite being the exact same.

If I remember right, they gave Kinectimals the same score as GT5 if that tells you anything.
Microsoft's money goes a long way.

I think its pretty widely known that the PS3 port of Bayonetta was a disaster at release. That may have been fixed with patches, however.

 

[Jack Skelhon]

Mass Effect 2 was an incredible game, regardless of format.

To paraquote Yahtzee of this very site though, who gives a damn about numbers? You can't judge a game by them, so why trust/believe them?

The only way to know if you like a game is to play it. So bin the numbers and the reviews.

Get some critical perspectives.

 

[GiantRaven]

They are completely and utterly biased. They gave Damnation (a crap game but at least it tried to be inventive) a 2.5. Then they gave Terminator Salvation a crap short game that tried nothing new over 5. An above average score. That was the last time I took IGN seriously.

Buuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhh?!

5/10 is not an above average score! It is a dead on absolute average score! This really pisses me off with reviews; they are never numbered in a way that makes sense. The majority of games that come out should be scoring around the 4/5/6 mark instead of 7/8/9. No type of media has that many products of that quality level.

 

[Tom Phoenix]

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

While I agree that it is impossible for any game to be perfect, that fact does raise an obvious question...what is the point of even having a "perfect" score, then? If there is no realistic chance for such a score to be given, then why even have it included in the scoring scale in the first place? I don't know about you, but I am a person who believes that if someone uses a scoring scale, that scale should be set up so that all scores have achievable, realistic requirements (no matter how high those requirements may be).

Simply put, if there is no such thing as a perfect game, then perhaps we shouldn't even have perfect scores to begin with.

 

[Chibz]

While I agree that it is impossible for any game to be perfect, that fact does raise an obvious question...what is the point of even having a "perfect" score, then? If there is no realistic chance for such a score to be given, then why even have it included in the scoring scale in the first place? I don't know about you, but I am a person who believes that if someone uses a scoring scale, that scale should be set up so that all scores have achievable, realistic requirements (no matter how high those requirements may be).

Simply put, if there is no such thing as a perfect game, then perhaps we shouldn't even have perfect scores to begin with.

Therein lies the problem. By having a highest-score possible it inheritly becomes the perfect score of the rating system. We should have a perfect score and a utterly imperfect score (In my score 0 and 100) mostly as an ideal. A score that would be fitting for the fictional, never to be made, perfectly good (or bad) game.

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

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.

-_- umm because it is better. The only reason they were compared is because they came out around the same time and were both based on antiheros in ppen worlds.

 

[Toriver]

honestly i never liked IGN that much they do favor the 360 more than the ps3 but alot of companies do, but IGN makes it point blank that they like the 360 more out of frat boyism

This, and the fact that they wouldn't be caught dead saying anything nice about Nintendo, are the reasons why I stopped going to IGN. Also, I can kinda see how they would tend to favor the 360 when their editor-in-chief used to be their longtime 360 editor. Just sayin'.

I know they gave Bayonetta a higher score on the 360 despite them being 100% identical. Most all multiplatform games get higher scores on the 360 despite being the exact same.

If I remember right, they gave Kinectimals the same score as GT5 if that tells you anything.
Microsoft's money goes a long way.

Actually, if I remember right myself, pretty much every comparison between the 360 and PS3 Bayonetta commented on the visual and control issues with the PS3 version, giving the 360 the "edge" on that game, so to speak. I've also heard from friends who have played both versions and can back that up.

 

[moretimethansense]

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.

Or perhaps they thought it was the better game?
I know I did, don't get me wrong they are as biased as all hell but using that as an example simply shows your own bias.

 

[squid5580]

They are completely and utterly biased. They gave Damnation (a crap game but at least it tried to be inventive) a 2.5. Then they gave Terminator Salvation a crap short game that tried nothing new over 5. An above average score. That was the last time I took IGN seriously.

Buuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhh?!

5/10 is not an above average score! It is a dead on absolute average score! This really pisses me off with reviews; they are never numbered in a way that makes sense. The majority of games that come out should be scoring around the 4/5/6 mark instead of 7/8/9. No type of media has that many products of that quality level.

Over 5 is an above average score. Reading comprehension is your friend

 

[Azaraxzealot]

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.

Or perhaps they thought it was the better game?
I know I did, don't get me wrong they are as biased as all hell but using that as an example simply shows your own bias.

did i say prototype was better? read my post before saying im biased.

besides that, the OP has the right idea when saying that that Mass Effect 2 review was biased. it's only a matter of time before xbox gets a GOTY edition with all the DLC included.