Can somebody explain the hate for IGN
- Thread starter Gpoisonstar
- Start date
Recommended Videos
When it comes to reviews, I never read/watch just one. From the IGN reviews I have seen (Not many) they seem fine, but Im not in the position to judge them. When I am researching a game, I mainly scan through multiple reviews, and this allows you to notice the conflicting taste of the different websites/people. I then see which taste is closer to my own, and then I take there scores into consideration. Basically, I don't think it's worth raging over the way a website rates games because really there are many more reviews to compare them with.
This bothers me too, no wonder people think games are still for immature kids when they can't even look at a review without going berserk or on a geek rage
They're just not...good reviews.
They almost always miss out a whole lot of important factors, consider extremely minor details and faults waaaay too much, and they don't seem to take a look at a game in general, consider what it's trying to achieve, and then assess how well it does that.
There are a couple of IGN guys who do reviews which I think are pretty spot on, but the majority of them? Not so much.
They almost always miss out a whole lot of important factors, consider extremely minor details and faults waaaay too much, and they don't seem to take a look at a game in general, consider what it's trying to achieve, and then assess how well it does that.
There are a couple of IGN guys who do reviews which I think are pretty spot on, but the majority of them? Not so much.
It's stuffed with ads, the articles are only occasionally good, the reviews are always bad,[footnote]Actually, that's untrue, but IGN told me that Fable 3 wasn't a waste of money, so I don't really want to listen to reason anymore.[/footnote] and it's kind of cool to hate on it. 
Off topic: You're fucking kidding me. There are ads in our captchas now?! Okay, Escapist, I'll give you money. Now please stop.
Off topic: You're fucking kidding me. There are ads in our captchas now?! Okay, Escapist, I'll give you money. Now please stop.
I personally used to like them and they were my "go to guys" for reviews but over the last year the quality of the reviews have really slipped, not the results (even though most games get 8.5 due to the score changing), I could care less for marks out off 10, but the reviews just seem all over the place now and a lot of times the first paragraph would contradict another.
If a reviewer can't remember their own points from an article sitting in front of them then it's not an interesting read for me.
Another reason is their filler material on the site has slipped in quality too and the annoying "Where is the xxxx review" articles, I mean I get it, sometimes a review is late for various reasons (more so for IGN now days than it used to be) but quit telling us it's going to be late and get on with it.
If a reviewer can't remember their own points from an article sitting in front of them then it's not an interesting read for me.
Another reason is their filler material on the site has slipped in quality too and the annoying "Where is the xxxx review" articles, I mean I get it, sometimes a review is late for various reasons (more so for IGN now days than it used to be) but quit telling us it's going to be late and get on with it.
Honestly, I haven't read reviews of any kind in-depth in years. Why? Because they focused more on the premise of the game, any story it may have had, but given no real substance when it came to the mechanics. Screenshots and demo videos may abound, but that doesn't give the same feel for having a demo disc in your hand to get half an hour of even simplified gameplay to determine whether such a game is for you. What did happen to getting free demos with magazines, anyways?
In text, a game could sound like the most revolutionary thing in gaming to date with quick control response, high-res graphics, and any gimmicks the game hopes to use to get attention... Then you actually get the game and find out that the controls do respond quickly (but there are so many buttons you have to hit to find and start commands), the designs are very detailed (until you get very close, or perhaps there are little bugs in some designs), and that gimmick mentioned is either so useless that few people really remember it's there or it somehow does something that makes other parts of the game completely obsolete. There have been no reviews that I remember reading that pointed out the problems in a game because they were too busy raving about how "cutting edge" it was supposed to be, even if it really wasn't. At least that's my complaint with reviews...
And who's to say that review boards like IGN aren't being swayed in some way to find reviewers who would play a quick demo, watch a couple of videos, and jot down their first impression? With so many 8+ scores going around, it's easy for more jaded gamers, or those who just hate that genre/developer/specific title, to accuse the reviewer of being bribed in some way that other people just aren't seeing. Or it could just be that the reviewing process is based on an older system that makes any new games look spectacular by comparison.
In text, a game could sound like the most revolutionary thing in gaming to date with quick control response, high-res graphics, and any gimmicks the game hopes to use to get attention... Then you actually get the game and find out that the controls do respond quickly (but there are so many buttons you have to hit to find and start commands), the designs are very detailed (until you get very close, or perhaps there are little bugs in some designs), and that gimmick mentioned is either so useless that few people really remember it's there or it somehow does something that makes other parts of the game completely obsolete. There have been no reviews that I remember reading that pointed out the problems in a game because they were too busy raving about how "cutting edge" it was supposed to be, even if it really wasn't. At least that's my complaint with reviews...
And who's to say that review boards like IGN aren't being swayed in some way to find reviewers who would play a quick demo, watch a couple of videos, and jot down their first impression? With so many 8+ scores going around, it's easy for more jaded gamers, or those who just hate that genre/developer/specific title, to accuse the reviewer of being bribed in some way that other people just aren't seeing. Or it could just be that the reviewing process is based on an older system that makes any new games look spectacular by comparison.
I don't usually buy games on release day but I had been waiting for a new total war game for years and I was pretty excited about Empire: Total War. Still I went to IGN for a quick review of the game. They rated the game 9.5/10 or "Amazing". They took off half a mark for rough edges so you'd think it would be pretty good. So I bought the game the day it came out and took it home.
About 15 minutes into the game I could tell something wasn't right. The computer couldn't move its ships or armies properly, it never concentrated its forces, couldn't do naval invasions, didn't understand combined arms, didn't make fleets, was completely hopeless at diplomacy and the sound didn't work properly. After a couple of hours it became apparent that it was actually impossible for me to lose because the AI didn't work.
This isn't a difference of opinion between myself and the reviewer. The game didn't work and was obviously a complete mess and there's no way anyone reviewing it honestly would miss that. I have no idea why they would rate a broken game 9.5/10 other then contempt for their fan base but they definitely lost a reader when I brought that game home.
Here is what their review should have looked like: http://www.crispygamer.com/gamereviews/2009-03-17/empire-total-war-pc.aspx
TLDR: I don't like IGN because experience has taught me that they are extremely unreliable.
About 15 minutes into the game I could tell something wasn't right. The computer couldn't move its ships or armies properly, it never concentrated its forces, couldn't do naval invasions, didn't understand combined arms, didn't make fleets, was completely hopeless at diplomacy and the sound didn't work properly. After a couple of hours it became apparent that it was actually impossible for me to lose because the AI didn't work.
This isn't a difference of opinion between myself and the reviewer. The game didn't work and was obviously a complete mess and there's no way anyone reviewing it honestly would miss that. I have no idea why they would rate a broken game 9.5/10 other then contempt for their fan base but they definitely lost a reader when I brought that game home.
Here is what their review should have looked like: http://www.crispygamer.com/gamereviews/2009-03-17/empire-total-war-pc.aspx
TLDR: I don't like IGN because experience has taught me that they are extremely unreliable.
They don't seem to be particularly generous to certain types of games, which, you know, fine by me, 'cause people who like them don't usually read them.
The problem is, the reviews are just not very good most of the time.
I don't have anything personal against them, they're just another review website.
The problem is, the reviews are just not very good most of the time.
I don't have anything personal against them, they're just another review website.
Questionable reviews, really stupid reviewers (they let Halotards review strategy games and then of course these get a low review), more ads on their website than there are lonely people on Myspace, and a review scale where 8 means average. One of the worst gaming related websites there is, period.
The only good parts of the IGN network are their FAQs and walkthroughs.
The only good parts of the IGN network are their FAQs and walkthroughs.
I do check the reviews (though a bit hit and miss), it's the comment section that makes me cringe. That and navigating the site.Aaron Glenn said:
