Why all the IGN hate?
- Thread starter pwnzerstick
- Start date
In the May edition of GameInformer AU magazine, somebody wrote in asking about review scores and why reviewers always give major games a 9/10, etc. I will outline the main reasons:
"The games you enjoy playing are funded by non-gamers. They're funded by investors who buy shares in the big publishers that then go on to invest that money into games in the aim of making money and offering pleasurable dividends"
"These people are highly reactionary as it's their money being gambled and they watch portals like Metacritic and Gamerankings like hawks. A couple of bad game scores can literally see stock prices plummet as disappointed investors pull out of the company."
"... understand why scores average around the 6 to 7 realm. Because if you were to start dropping 5s for an average score, and giving 4s to what you would usually give 6s the context and reasoning behind such a thing will not be understood in the broader global market. There needs to be a global standard and there is: it just happens to be higher than either you, or I, would like."
Reviews aren't always for the gamers.
"The games you enjoy playing are funded by non-gamers. They're funded by investors who buy shares in the big publishers that then go on to invest that money into games in the aim of making money and offering pleasurable dividends"
"These people are highly reactionary as it's their money being gambled and they watch portals like Metacritic and Gamerankings like hawks. A couple of bad game scores can literally see stock prices plummet as disappointed investors pull out of the company."
"... understand why scores average around the 6 to 7 realm. Because if you were to start dropping 5s for an average score, and giving 4s to what you would usually give 6s the context and reasoning behind such a thing will not be understood in the broader global market. There needs to be a global standard and there is: it just happens to be higher than either you, or I, would like."
Reviews aren't always for the gamers.
I'm not a huge fan of them because usually they'll give any hyped up game a high score for no other reason besides it's been hyped up. Their scoring system is just plain broken, and it seems like most of their reviewers just give certain titles far too much credit, like if your teacher gave you higher marks cause she liked you more then the other students, rather then on your actual merits.
I'm not too familiar with IGN to be honest. I'm currently browsing their site, reading a few reviews and comparing user vs IGN scores and such, but I'm not getting any ideas if they are really using a bad scoring system. I am interested in seeing where they actually have legitimately favored a game just because it was a big title. Can anyone give me an example?
IGN's been targeted for hate for MUCH longer than Gamespot. Their journalism's been criticized by gamers for over ten years now. Believe me, I was having this debate in 1999--and back then I was defending them. I haven't paid attention to them in a long time, but let's see what I can dig up.irishstormtrooper said:
Okay, here. Go and read their [a href="http://ps3.ign.com/articles/954/954208p1.html"] X-Blades review[/a]. Never mind the score; if anything it's being ridiculously generous to this game. Just read this review and try to tell me that this sounds remotely like a professional game reviewer wrote it.
Granted not every article on IGN is quite this poorly done, but they still hire writers this lazy and unprofessional to write reviews and articles, and there's enough of these guys around to really make you lose respect for the whole site. Sometimes it's not a matter of them being unprofessional about writing and form, but rather a matter of a certain lack of thought they'll put into an article.
For instance, I once dug up a piece they published on the uneven portreyal of women as lead characters in games. I wish I could find the source again, but I'll try and sum it up. The writer basically lambasted the game industry, saying we should stop using female characters as leads in games and expecting it to be "edgy."
This was in 2009, mind you. Lara Croft has been irrelevant for years at this point and we're all so aware that [a href="http://www.videogamegirlsdb.com/gamegirl/Images/Metroid/Samus/Zero_Suit_Samus_SSBB_02.jpg"]Samus is a woman[/a] that it's almost painful.
He seemed to be implying that the only two reasons game developers ever used women was for A) edginess and B) sex appeal, giving absolutely no benefit of the doubt that maybe female characters just fit some roles best, and went off to list the worst offenders. I don't even need to give you the whole list, I just need to tell you that he listed Faith from Mirror's Edge as one of these so-called "worst offenders" right alongside a half-dozen flagrant bimbos, including [a href="http://www.zombiewatchnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/adawong.jpg"]Ada Wong[/a].
Meanwhile, he completely ignored gratuitous tit-fests like the ongoing Dead or Alive series and totally failed to bring up Tomb Raider, which seemed to be what he was going after in the first place. If anyone can dig up the article, trust me, it's a real hoot and a half, and a perfect example of just how badly thought-out some of IGN's writing can get. Never mind Faith being one of the "worst offenders," it was just a really absurd article, and I couldn't tell if he was suggesting that women absolutely don't belong in games under any circumstances or if he was trying to appeal to feminism and just missing the point.
Those are just a couple of examples, but you can see where someone could get the impression that they're unprofessional. Not necessarily evil, but unprofessional--enough so that maybe their reviews are influenced by sponsorship, maybe they're biased, and maybe they don't really play some of the games they review all the way through.
I posted a huge rant on this just yesterday, so I'll just do bullet points.
WHY IGN SUCKS ENORMOUS DONKEY TESTICLES:
- Their reviews are incredibly poorly written
- They will often give a big-name title an incredibly high score even if it doesn't deserve it to avoid alienating site visitors
- They tend to ignore more obscure games and give them shorter reviews and lower scores, and will review them without playing through the entire game
- They will often give the Xbox version of a game a higher score than the PS3 version, even if there is absolutely no difference in the two versions
- They fawn over graphics and rate games higher based on them
- They cannot commit to only reviewing games and have started reviewing movies and TV shows to get more traffic
- Their reviews of movies and TV shows are somehow even worse than their reviews of video games
- Their staff is incredibly retarded; Jessica Chobot in particular seems to know very little about games, and seems to be employed just so they can have a somewhat attractive female on staff
- They have been known to bully lesser websites and force them to remove reviews to lessen competition
- Unlike Gamespot, people do not recognize that they suck, and they have become the number one gaming website despite all their flaws
WHY IGN SUCKS ENORMOUS DONKEY TESTICLES:
- Their reviews are incredibly poorly written
- They will often give a big-name title an incredibly high score even if it doesn't deserve it to avoid alienating site visitors
- They tend to ignore more obscure games and give them shorter reviews and lower scores, and will review them without playing through the entire game
- They will often give the Xbox version of a game a higher score than the PS3 version, even if there is absolutely no difference in the two versions
- They fawn over graphics and rate games higher based on them
- They cannot commit to only reviewing games and have started reviewing movies and TV shows to get more traffic
- Their reviews of movies and TV shows are somehow even worse than their reviews of video games
- Their staff is incredibly retarded; Jessica Chobot in particular seems to know very little about games, and seems to be employed just so they can have a somewhat attractive female on staff
- They have been known to bully lesser websites and force them to remove reviews to lessen competition
- Unlike Gamespot, people do not recognize that they suck, and they have become the number one gaming website despite all their flaws
Has anyone considered the fact that most times the 360 version of a multi-platform game IS slightly better than its PS3 counterpart? Don't confuse fact with bias.
Having the benefit of owning both consoles my brother and I have done quite a few head to head comparisons and about 7 out of 10 times we both reckon the 360 version has the edge. Most of the time it's simply framerate stability issues, which while not breaking the game, can make it slightly less fun.
Having the benefit of owning both consoles my brother and I have done quite a few head to head comparisons and about 7 out of 10 times we both reckon the 360 version has the edge. Most of the time it's simply framerate stability issues, which while not breaking the game, can make it slightly less fun.
WHAT? C'mon! You people seriously don't see them suck Microsoft's cock everyday?
Besides that, do they actually review a game or give it 9.something/10 just because its from a Triple A dev?
They give games that people on IGN play the most higher scores to keep them happy. MW2 gets 9.4 but BC 2 gets 8.9? When BC2 is much more balanced multiplayer wise, even with MW2 in the campaign category. They award a broken game a higher score.
Fuck those guys.
Besides that, do they actually review a game or give it 9.something/10 just because its from a Triple A dev?
They give games that people on IGN play the most higher scores to keep them happy. MW2 gets 9.4 but BC 2 gets 8.9? When BC2 is much more balanced multiplayer wise, even with MW2 in the campaign category. They award a broken game a higher score.
Fuck those guys.
In an IGN review of Assassin's Creed II, the guy said a con was the control. Such as holding R1 (on the PS3) then X to run. What the fuck? The control is close to perfect in this game. Targeting was the only issue.
I let Metacritic decide most of my expenditures.
I let Metacritic decide most of my expenditures.
It's a simple fact. People from one site about any paticualr subject will think that their site is better then any other site about the same subject matter. It's just a fact.
However, I do tend to agree with this case of IGN bashing for there best character/film/game/cartoon/etc. lists having been thrown together by morons. Really, is the Simpsons better then Batman:TAS? Is it?
However, I do tend to agree with this case of IGN bashing for there best character/film/game/cartoon/etc. lists having been thrown together by morons. Really, is the Simpsons better then Batman:TAS? Is it?
When it comes to IGN, I don't look at the score, which was probably paid for by some corporate shill. I read the actual review. And on that front, the site delivers wonderfully. Steve Butts shares my taste in games, so when he says something's good, I buy it. And I enjoy it.