Can somebody explain the hate for IGN
- Thread starter Gpoisonstar
- Start date
Recommended Videos
To search up evidence would require a (probably) thorough search on google, of which I'm not going to do because I, along with everyone else already knows that IGN sucks.Still Life said:
All opinions are subjective (not objective, in italics for added emphasis) really, so you can choose not to care.
I can't stand their video reviews. They manage to make them all so boring somehow. At least, all the ones I've watched.
GameTrailers always has much more interesting video reviews I've found. They do video reviews here too don't they? Maybe I should check out some of them too. Sometimes I just can't get all I need to know from words.
GameTrailers always has much more interesting video reviews I've found. They do video reviews here too don't they? Maybe I should check out some of them too. Sometimes I just can't get all I need to know from words.
No.CodeOrange said:
My point is about those who make claims of IGN breaching journalistic integrity -- something which requires facts for statements of such to be valid. Anything else is just puffery.
I don't care whether or not you like how their content is delivered.
I thought it involved a few major review sites and some printed media as well.Still Life said:
Edit: Nope your right, I apologize. Praise be to google.
I only like the ability to blog and put my own opinion on the net, but I hate the damn reviews!!
Still Life said:
I like Fable 3...... I personally just think like all communities IGN are open to loads of games that are more open to a casual audience. and the same goes roughly for all websites, they have a larger interest in some areas but less in others.Bobbity said: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.
Sometimes I don't agree with reviews, sometimes I do. Plenty of other sites which may express their opinions more congruent with a certain user's preference. I've never had a problem with IGN's reviews, personally -- they serve their purpose as an opinionated article.weker said:
Ads don't prove anything, either. The Escapist has adverting. Most gaming sites have advertising.
They were one of the first gaming sites around but they still can't get people who know how to write. Game 'journalist' are all pretty horrid writers but IGN is just pathetic. And I'm not talking about what that scam artist was recently talking about, I'm talking about basic writing skills. You're getting paid to write why don't at least try to improve upon it.
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS.Patrick Young said:
Thank you for putting it this eloquently. Their reliance on buzzwords and vagueness irks me to no end.
The other thing I despise about IGN is their inconsistency. I read their Wind Waker review, they praised it to the moon and back, and then when the hype built up for Twilight Princess, all anyone could say about Wind Waker was about how crappy a lot of the aspects they said were great in their review, were.
"Here's a secret about game reviewers. No matter what we say otherwise, deep down in our hearts, we hate having to review RPGs. We liked RPGs once, a long time ago, but not any more. The first time we had to play one under deadline, investing forty-odd hours of our own time, we developed an implacable hatred of the entire genre and all that it represents. Another boss? Another dungeon? Another unending talking-heads sequence? How long, O Lord, how long?"
...Right before admitting that perhaps his aggravation at having to play it under deadline clouded his final judgment of the game. Why not just let someone who LOVES to review RPGs handle it?
...Right before admitting that perhaps his aggravation at having to play it under deadline clouded his final judgment of the game. Why not just let someone who LOVES to review RPGs handle it?
I got to Destructoid for my reviews. I feel that they're honest and considerate of what people wanna hear about their games: honesty without needless hate or jaded snark from people who love what they play. They don't let some hater or jaded asshole reviewing the games he/she hates or is jaded to. Jim Sterling flat out said that he's glad for the fans' sake that he not reviewing Catherine because while he realizes there's definitely an audience for that sort of game, he fucking hated the demo.
Also, I fucking hate how IGN Movies endlessly pushes the Talia Al Ghul angle when they speculate about The Dark Knight Rises. I swear, if news got out that Batman was gay in TDKR, IGN would find a way to put in something about how his gay lover may or may not be a spy planted by Marion Cotillard's character who may or may not be Talia Al Ghul. That insistence really bugs me for some reason.
And they also just hardcore spoiled one of the most shocking plot twists from a recent TV show for the sake of a "clever" tagline.
They're really just not very good.
any site that has ads for products that they review could possibly have been subject to bribery. that doesnt mean it would influence their decision and it isnt just gaming websites and magazines. however, i dont really consider the escapist to be about games but rather, about gaming culture. still, on this, or any other site, if i see a review next to a big ad for the game being reviewed, i will always question whether or not they are being 100% honest. i will not assume they have been bought off, but will still explore other sourcesAnarchemitis said:
I usually give IGN a look to see the pros of a game, then I look for more cynical reviewers to see if there are any major flaws in the game that would keep me from playing (too short and without replayability, all cut scenes and no action, excessive linearity, etc.).
IGN is pretty generous with their reviews, but it gives a general idea of what the game is like.
IGN is pretty generous with their reviews, but it gives a general idea of what the game is like.
I was fine with IGN until they said Mass Effect 2 is the greatest game of the last 5 years. That whole list they made of the top 100 modern games was a joke. I do admit some of their reviews are questionable but I doubt they take bribes or whatever people say.
I personally don't like IGN because they give 8's and 9's to almost any game and their reviews never touch on any real bad elements only the good. This could be bad because they may forget to mention that game breaking bug or the gameplay can get slowed down. Stuff like that makes me not want to watch their reviews
The thing that annoys me with the reviewers is that they don't seem to have an idea of what they're talking about. They marked Gran Turismo 5 down because it had similar controls as the previous game in the series, but meanwhile whenever the next Cowadooty game is released it's "WHOO YEAH, COD! GREAT CONTROLS!"
That, and they marked God of War: Ghost of Sparta down for not having multiplayer. That reason is just laughable. It's a God of War game. For PSP. Why should it have to have multiplayer?
That, and they marked God of War: Ghost of Sparta down for not having multiplayer. That reason is just laughable. It's a God of War game. For PSP. Why should it have to have multiplayer?
I have a few problems with the site
1) They tend to review on a 7-10 scale. IMO Mediocore games should get a 5 not a 7.
2) Since Steve Butts left IGN and started reviewing for the escapist I feel the quality of their reviews dropped significantly. Steve was never afraid to dole out low scores for games he felt deserved them.
3) I feel that a lot of the reviewers, especially on the PS3 team, seem like they just got into gaming in the last 5 - 10 years. It's not that I don't like young reviewers, but as an entirely made up example when you review Civ V with a statement like "I've never played a civ game before" I'm going to weigh your opinion differently.
1) They tend to review on a 7-10 scale. IMO Mediocore games should get a 5 not a 7.
2) Since Steve Butts left IGN and started reviewing for the escapist I feel the quality of their reviews dropped significantly. Steve was never afraid to dole out low scores for games he felt deserved them.
3) I feel that a lot of the reviewers, especially on the PS3 team, seem like they just got into gaming in the last 5 - 10 years. It's not that I don't like young reviewers, but as an entirely made up example when you review Civ V with a statement like "I've never played a civ game before" I'm going to weigh your opinion differently.