Still Life said:
CodeOrange said:
That's because IGN rates games based on the first hour or so of it and tilts the score depending on whether or not anyone expects anything from it (think popularity), regardless of them being bribed to give high scores to games.
Prove it.
Seriously. This gets said every time IGN is brought up and
without evidence to support it.
While I do agree with your stance, it is also arguable that mainstream "AAA" titles tend to receive very high scores, and most games out of that loop suffer lower scores, even if they're a monumental success.
OT: Personally, I'm not all that big on reviews. I'd much rather play the game first, myself, and if anything I follow has something to say about it (Yahtzee being the only reviewer that I look towards on any sort of regular basis), I'll pick up on it
after I've finished the game and established my own opinion. Arguably, that's a double-edged sword, because my opinion could conflict with the reviewers', but it really holds no water because game reviews are supposed to be an unbiased observation of said game's strengths and flaws.
As far as IGN goes (and a couple other sites in similar positions), I just don't like them because I feel they're inherently biased (partly through their marketing; partly through their exposition). As the years have passed, I've just generally added them into the lump of media that doesn't suit my tastes, so I take a good ounce of salt with their scores. Besides, if I'm interested in a game, I'm pre-ordering it, anyway, so checking on a review really doesn't do me a whole lot of good in deciding on a purchase, now does it?
