Yeah, I got that impression as well. Either that, or the reviewer just didn't like the game and let that seep too much into his review.Iwata said:
Is IGN really ignorant?
- Thread starter Rock-nerd
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Although strangely I've found that Australian side of IGN produce pretty intelligent original content, in comparison to the rest of the contributors anyway. I think they were the first to start running an opinion piece video series too. I don't know if it's still going but I remember it being pretty good. The funny thing is they actually names the series after this "IGNorant" meme, or at least I think they did. They were called "IGN AU rant", and at the beginning of every episode they said "it's pronounced 'ignorant'!" in a jokey way.
Well it's usually the other way around, where they give otherwise bad games amazing review scores.
They fault some titles for being just a repeat of whatever the game before it was, yet gives CoD almost perfect marks every single time.
The Mass Effect review was pretty iffy if you ask me. They have one of their employees star in the game and then happen to give it a perfect score. Coincidence? I honestly can't think of a good reason why Chobot was in ME3, she's a terrible voice actor (I almost cringe) and she's just a distracting presence. Bioware apparently even knew how bad she is because you're allowed to kick her off the ship anytime you want. The only reaon that makes sense is it was some kind of agreement between the two, IGN get's the massive amount of attention and ME3 gets great scores on one of the mega review corps.
Sure, saying IGNorant isnt exactly clever but that doesn't make the critisism any less valid. IGN is all paid off by the giant companies as far as I'm concerned. Which is why I don't watch their stuff.
They fault some titles for being just a repeat of whatever the game before it was, yet gives CoD almost perfect marks every single time.
The Mass Effect review was pretty iffy if you ask me. They have one of their employees star in the game and then happen to give it a perfect score. Coincidence? I honestly can't think of a good reason why Chobot was in ME3, she's a terrible voice actor (I almost cringe) and she's just a distracting presence. Bioware apparently even knew how bad she is because you're allowed to kick her off the ship anytime you want. The only reaon that makes sense is it was some kind of agreement between the two, IGN get's the massive amount of attention and ME3 gets great scores on one of the mega review corps.
Sure, saying IGNorant isnt exactly clever but that doesn't make the critisism any less valid. IGN is all paid off by the giant companies as far as I'm concerned. Which is why I don't watch their stuff.
But i thought people generally liked the books. What i heard was that the books were great, but the movie was shit.Kahunaburger said:
OT: I pretty much just watched the IGN review of Skullgirls and it pretty much represented everything i dislike about IGN because they just don't seem credible in what they say. It's like they don't even believe in their own praise (which drags on a lot) and then just skim over the things that make it a lesser good game.
So yeah... i don't think they balance their reviews very well (because they have been nown to tilt both ways) and in my mind that makes them unreliable for proper reviewing.
This happens relatively often with IGN. If you don't have a massive marketing hype machine and your game is difficult, niche, or complex, the review's basically a crap shoot.Fleetfiend said:
They were both terrible by normal standards. The book at least had an excuse - it was written by a kid who was homeschooled. If, on the other hand, you want to see what the world looks like to a kid with above-average verbal/linguistic skills, below-average social skills, and little to no breadth or depth of real-world experience, they're a somewhat interesting read.Ulquiorra4sama said:
Well, it's like the console wars. People tend to flock towards reviewers and critics they tend to agree with. IGN has become a big deal because a LOT of people like it, and agree with it's point of view, making it one of the more influential sources when it comes to gaming and geek culture. As a result those who don't agree with it, tend to be increasingly resentful because of all the people that do, and the weight it pulls.
As odd as it sounds I think IGN winds up exercising a little more freedom of opinion than other similar sites, even if it's still very topheavy. While IGN is manipulated by the industry due to IGN's dependance on it, the sheer popularity of IGN and size of it's organization gives it a little counter-pull, as does it branching out into more things than just games. As a result while IGN can't tank a popular/expensive AAA title from a big publisher, it can be less than glowing about it in a way that other similar organizations can't. Thus series fanboys get upset when they become used to "everyone" loving their mania of choice and see a major organization saying otherwise even if they aren't exactly negative. The same applies to their high ratings of products that otherwise wind up getting panned, which usually amounts to the amount of advertising dollars behind them (ie the less money behind a game, the more honest you can be), in cases like that it's usually IGN's reviewers simply liking something that other sources didn't, and that is why we have differant reviewers and critics, with differant points of view.
I'm not a huge IGN fan, this is just how I see things.
As odd as it sounds I think IGN winds up exercising a little more freedom of opinion than other similar sites, even if it's still very topheavy. While IGN is manipulated by the industry due to IGN's dependance on it, the sheer popularity of IGN and size of it's organization gives it a little counter-pull, as does it branching out into more things than just games. As a result while IGN can't tank a popular/expensive AAA title from a big publisher, it can be less than glowing about it in a way that other similar organizations can't. Thus series fanboys get upset when they become used to "everyone" loving their mania of choice and see a major organization saying otherwise even if they aren't exactly negative. The same applies to their high ratings of products that otherwise wind up getting panned, which usually amounts to the amount of advertising dollars behind them (ie the less money behind a game, the more honest you can be), in cases like that it's usually IGN's reviewers simply liking something that other sources didn't, and that is why we have differant reviewers and critics, with differant points of view.
I'm not a huge IGN fan, this is just how I see things.
My thoughts on any reviewer are that you need to become familiar with what that reviewer says about a game and compare it to what you think about it when you've played it.
To use an example here at escapist, I've come to accept many of the comments that Yahtzee makes about a game. While he does tend towards hyperbole, the heart of what he says about many of the games he reviews seem to correlate with my experiences (look at either of the two Tomb Raider reviews). His Fallout 3 & New Vegas reviews (and Oblivion--since we're dealing with the same engine) also seem to measure up with my experience. This does not mean that everything he says must be heeded.
My relationship with MovieBob is similar to this. I have had to watch a couple of the movies and re-watch his reviews to see I my experience is affected by his point-of-view. There are concerns that Bob has that I don't have with movies, but I can respect where he is coming from and, in many cases, get a new perspective on the movie experience as a result of it.
I think it is also a good thing to read/watch multiple reviews to see what many reviewers are picking up on as strengths and weaknesses in the game/movie. Look no further than the Amy reviews. I had been interested in the game, but lost all interest because of the multitude of reviews that pointed out the very things that often frustrate me when I am playing a game. Similarly, I have paused in purchasing I Am Alive because of the tepid reviews it received.
So, to answer the question, if IGN is unduly rosy when publishing its reviews, I can temper it with Yahtzee or G4 or any number of reviews around the web.
To use an example here at escapist, I've come to accept many of the comments that Yahtzee makes about a game. While he does tend towards hyperbole, the heart of what he says about many of the games he reviews seem to correlate with my experiences (look at either of the two Tomb Raider reviews). His Fallout 3 & New Vegas reviews (and Oblivion--since we're dealing with the same engine) also seem to measure up with my experience. This does not mean that everything he says must be heeded.
My relationship with MovieBob is similar to this. I have had to watch a couple of the movies and re-watch his reviews to see I my experience is affected by his point-of-view. There are concerns that Bob has that I don't have with movies, but I can respect where he is coming from and, in many cases, get a new perspective on the movie experience as a result of it.
I think it is also a good thing to read/watch multiple reviews to see what many reviewers are picking up on as strengths and weaknesses in the game/movie. Look no further than the Amy reviews. I had been interested in the game, but lost all interest because of the multitude of reviews that pointed out the very things that often frustrate me when I am playing a game. Similarly, I have paused in purchasing I Am Alive because of the tepid reviews it received.
So, to answer the question, if IGN is unduly rosy when publishing its reviews, I can temper it with Yahtzee or G4 or any number of reviews around the web.
Eeew, I don't really read reviews. I used to listen to the Xbox specific podcast though I like the personalities of the writers a lot more in relaxed settings and it was interesting to see what they said about games and other issues when they were just talking to each other in a casual way rather than a paid review. I haven't listened in a while though I quit about the time Hilary got a promotion or something. Maybe I should start listening again...
IGN is extremely ignorant. You haven't looked very hard, have you?
Often times, they will rant about how "poorly" they think a game did something that it wasn't even setting out to do, like Zapper: One Wicked Cricket!. Heck, they were blaming it for things it never even did! They also say things that make you wonder if they've even played videogames, before. Take their "review" of [Prototype], for example. They whined about this one attack you have that plummets you down and you have to have to hold the "X" and "B" buttons together and it's so hard to do tha- ABSOLUTE GARBAGE! Have these people ever even seen an X-Box 360 controller? It's so easy! And I love how they completely neglect saying anything about the PS3 and PC versions. They just stick to the 360. And the attack doesn't plummet you down. It's a homing attack. They nitpick at the stupidest, teeny detail we might not have even noticed and completely blow it way out of proportion!
And, of course, I will never forget what was said in their review for Assassins Creed. It went something like...
"We won't give away what happens at the beginning of this game, but, we'll spoil the ending of The Sixth Sense for you!
It isn't about the ratings at all. It's the absolute foolishness they keep spitting out all the time.
Often times, they will rant about how "poorly" they think a game did something that it wasn't even setting out to do, like Zapper: One Wicked Cricket!. Heck, they were blaming it for things it never even did! They also say things that make you wonder if they've even played videogames, before. Take their "review" of [Prototype], for example. They whined about this one attack you have that plummets you down and you have to have to hold the "X" and "B" buttons together and it's so hard to do tha- ABSOLUTE GARBAGE! Have these people ever even seen an X-Box 360 controller? It's so easy! And I love how they completely neglect saying anything about the PS3 and PC versions. They just stick to the 360. And the attack doesn't plummet you down. It's a homing attack. They nitpick at the stupidest, teeny detail we might not have even noticed and completely blow it way out of proportion!
And, of course, I will never forget what was said in their review for Assassins Creed. It went something like...
"We won't give away what happens at the beginning of this game, but, we'll spoil the ending of The Sixth Sense for you!
It isn't about the ratings at all. It's the absolute foolishness they keep spitting out all the time.
One thing is having an opinion, another is checking out the review for Modern Warfare 3 and seeing that you could find the exact same information on it's cover.xSKULLY said:
Wow. It's not even an opinion, it's the gaming equivalent to a description of eating a thick grey paste with no taste and give it a 10/10 at the end.
It's not too hard to believe that games get better scores from IGN after a donation is made, or some other deal is struck. AAA releases that get high scores sometimes fall flat on sales or get some kind of customer backlash later for being trash. Meanwhile games from smaller companies get smaller scores (or no score at all) yet sell near half a million copies and get lots of word-of-mouth recommendations from people who were originally dubious.
Then there's the fact that some reviewers have said they spend more time playing games of a specific genre or company because they prefer those ones. Suddenly they're reviewing something completely different. Common sense says: Of course they'll find it harder to understand and feel either frustrated or unimpressed! On the one hand, it can prevent fanboy gushing over how great something is that really isn't, but on the other hand there's likely to be much more bashing on the bad points.
Then there's the fact that some reviewers have said they spend more time playing games of a specific genre or company because they prefer those ones. Suddenly they're reviewing something completely different. Common sense says: Of course they'll find it harder to understand and feel either frustrated or unimpressed! On the one hand, it can prevent fanboy gushing over how great something is that really isn't, but on the other hand there's likely to be much more bashing on the bad points.
FFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-xSKULLY said:
I said that they gave absolutely NO REASON to buy it, they did not give their OPINIONS, they just said "hurr you have this and this, ties up loose ends, durr" and gave it a 10/10.
That is NOT. How. You. Review. Games. That's like reading the first paragraph on wikipedia's page on Citizen Kane, copying everything that it said, and call it a good movie.
I could have written the same review by watching MW3's trailer. "Oh, graphics still have the quality we are used to, you can expect Infinity Ward action sequences, this time you go after Makarov. WHO CARES ABOUT WHAT I THINK ABOUT THE GAME YOU PROBABLY KNOW MORE ABOUT IT THAN ME! Buy it."
And the fact that you could tell my opinion on MW3 in a post where I did not say a single word about it REALLY RUSTLED MY JIMMIES.
This is why I like reviewers like Angry Joe or Yatzee - they don't just say that "its good" - they usually say WHY a game is good. They give context to their opinions.
When I look at some IGN reviews I often wonder if the writers are paid to say 'nothing' - I mean, not to really describe any of the content, only to say its good?
When Angry Joe has to give a low score he languishes! He says in his reviews that he doesn't want to give too low scores, because then he knows that he'll be blacklisted if he's too rough. He especially focused on this when he talked about the first apparently RTS-turned-FPS Xcom trailers.
So ya, if most big game review sites and bought and paid for (and really, I don't think there are that many who aren't) then things like metacritic just do not make sense.
When I look at some IGN reviews I often wonder if the writers are paid to say 'nothing' - I mean, not to really describe any of the content, only to say its good?
When Angry Joe has to give a low score he languishes! He says in his reviews that he doesn't want to give too low scores, because then he knows that he'll be blacklisted if he's too rough. He especially focused on this when he talked about the first apparently RTS-turned-FPS Xcom trailers.
So ya, if most big game review sites and bought and paid for (and really, I don't think there are that many who aren't) then things like metacritic just do not make sense.
