IGN's Review of Blops2: Gay Porn, Dubstep, Nazis, & PowerRangers
- Thread starter BoogityBoogityMan
- Start date
Recommended Videos
oh yes, because a random youtube video clearly dictates an entire community. I'll get on the youtube comments right away to write the creator a very angry note!Andrewtheeviscerator said:
do you ever let loose maybe and just have fun? I know I have a pipe up my ass sometimes, but I try to dislodge it occasionally, even for childish things. It's okay, I promise no one will hurt you for it
Edit: I guess I should add something on topic:
Funny stuff, a little outlandish on some "wtf" moments but I believe that is what the video creator was going for, and jesus if I didn't lol at the power ranger parts.
what....what was that? i was going in thinking it as some kind of run of the mill anti call of duty vid but that was just My Eyes! Forever seen!
I think I just found out what happens when someone opens the Ark of the Covenant... and it was awesome. Seriously, it was the most disturbing thing I've watched on YouTube and I liked it. Therapy ahoy!!! @_@
This video is now one of my favourite videos on or outside of the internet. It's genius. It's a master-work. A tour de force. Pack your bags, film comedy men, you ain't worth beans no more. I want an extra thumb, so I can give this three thumbs up, and hit the space bar harder so I can fit more spaces into my description of the excellence of this video.
As a conservative, I prefer the White Power Ranger.Loop Stricken said:
It'll always and forever be a question of opinion, but the "review" isn't so much slamming the people who like BlOps 2 as what BlOps 2 seems to culturally imply for the gaming scene. CoD in general is made for the multiplayer-obsessed who takes virtual kills in a virtual game completely out of proportion.
The "Tacticool" bullet point is spot-on, seeing what you're getting is basically a tech demo of current or near-future armament technologies. You get to pretend that what you're doing has some sort of tactical significance, but it really doesn't.
The "Tacticool" bullet point is spot-on, seeing what you're getting is basically a tech demo of current or near-future armament technologies. You get to pretend that what you're doing has some sort of tactical significance, but it really doesn't.
As someone who has never played Call of Duty, and knows literally nothing about it besides that it's classified under the Spunkgargleweewee genre, I feel like this is an accurate representation of what an outsider looking in thinks the game is like. Kind of. I think the real CoD has less Power Rangers and more homoerotic overtones.
Needless to say, I'm kind of giggling like a giddy schoolgirl right now. I enjoyed that far too much.
Needless to say, I'm kind of giggling like a giddy schoolgirl right now. I enjoyed that far too much.
To some degree the image is right, but critics of ign aren't completely wrong either. IGN tends to rate some series down a lot for the same flaws they tend to overlook in bigger AAA releases. There is also the typical accusations of bought reviews.Bhaalspawn said:Part of me has always wondered why gamers seem to have such a hatred for IGN. But I just know if I looked into it for even a nanosecond, I'd find the reason is something stupid.
I'm afraid of being right on that regard, so I'm not even going to look.
This is the most accurate review I've ever seen for a game.
I'd give it a 9.5 though, the extra .5 being for the Mountain Dew chugging minigame.
Seriously though, this is great.
Having seen the actual review, I'm not really surprised. We'll see actual flaws for BlOps 2 creep out of the woodwork only a year or so from now, once something else will come along that will dissipate the bias some people have towards the series.
I don't really believe in the whole "bought reviews" argument. It more than likely happens on occasion, but the idea that ActiBlizzard would religiously plop a brown envelope filled with Ben Franklins on Anthony Gallegos' desk for every Infinity Ward or Treyarch release is a bit strange.
I think it's more likely that some staffers at IGN have a very personal bias in favour of that franchise. Emphasis on "personal", here. Don't forget that a lot of movie and book reviewers tend to specialize in specific genres. There's folks you go to for an accurate outlook on B-list movies and everything that's classified as a "genre" flick, and others you go to for a decent critique of more exploratory cinema - what some people might consider to be "auteur" material. You don't ask the guy who was in charge of reviewing Prometheus this summer if he wouldn't mind checking out the latest Woody Allen - you're just likely to end up with some pretty dissonant comments as a result if you do. It's the same reason why the Wall Street Journal needs to find decent writers if they're serious about occasionally including a Video Games segment. Their Borderlands 2 review mini-fiasco is a textbook case of a reviewer checking out a game that's located in a genre or niche he has no familiarity with whatsoever.
Some people on various review sites are RPG folks. Others are shooter people, others still are who you tap for more tactical outings like XCOM or any average RTS. The problem with developing an affinity for a certain genre is you might begin overlooking certain problems.
Like I said - give it a while and the rose-tinted goggles will come off. I doubt BlOps 2 will be slammed once the afterglow wears off, but I'd still rather think that hindsight is 20/20.
I don't really believe in the whole "bought reviews" argument. It more than likely happens on occasion, but the idea that ActiBlizzard would religiously plop a brown envelope filled with Ben Franklins on Anthony Gallegos' desk for every Infinity Ward or Treyarch release is a bit strange.
I think it's more likely that some staffers at IGN have a very personal bias in favour of that franchise. Emphasis on "personal", here. Don't forget that a lot of movie and book reviewers tend to specialize in specific genres. There's folks you go to for an accurate outlook on B-list movies and everything that's classified as a "genre" flick, and others you go to for a decent critique of more exploratory cinema - what some people might consider to be "auteur" material. You don't ask the guy who was in charge of reviewing Prometheus this summer if he wouldn't mind checking out the latest Woody Allen - you're just likely to end up with some pretty dissonant comments as a result if you do. It's the same reason why the Wall Street Journal needs to find decent writers if they're serious about occasionally including a Video Games segment. Their Borderlands 2 review mini-fiasco is a textbook case of a reviewer checking out a game that's located in a genre or niche he has no familiarity with whatsoever.
Some people on various review sites are RPG folks. Others are shooter people, others still are who you tap for more tactical outings like XCOM or any average RTS. The problem with developing an affinity for a certain genre is you might begin overlooking certain problems.
Like I said - give it a while and the rose-tinted goggles will come off. I doubt BlOps 2 will be slammed once the afterglow wears off, but I'd still rather think that hindsight is 20/20.
Gamers don't hate IGN because they like what we don't like.
Or at least I don't.
I don't like IGN because the site itself is a laughable mess of inaccurate information, blatant bias, and right wing ignorance.
They don't even hide it. They are like the gaming equivalent of fox news. They do everything they can for hits. And thats all they care about.
No matter how good they are, indie games consistently get lower scores from IGN "reviewers" who usually pick over every single itty bitty flaw they have; and by contrast when it comes to triple A titles their bias is clear.
The reviews for triple A games on IGN often read like a press release direct from the marketing department of a major publisher like EA. And they almost always give a Triple A title at least 1 point on the scale of 1 to 10 more than the games deserve IMO.
Now I am sure there are some reviewers who work for them who have some integrity, and I am sure some editors do as well. As well as some of their other employees too.
The problem is that it doesn't matter if they really are bought and paid for or not; because they have given the perception; because of their own blatant biases and their rampant thirst for hits; that their site IS bought and paid for by the large publishing houses.
Granted this is only my opinion on it - how I see the situation.
And in my opinion, if you guys will forgive me for saying, IGN is a bag of dicks.
EDIT:
If you take as an example the recent indie phenomenon FTL, most review sites are giving it a 9 out of 10 or a 9.5 out of 10.
And most of the reviews don't talk about the games flaws until the third or second to last paragraph.
IGN? 8/10. And it's review begins bitching about the games flaws in the SECOND paragraph.
Compare it to a recent triple A release in Black Ops 2.
Destructoid rates CoD:Black Ops 2 at a solid 8.5 out of 10.
And IGN? 9.3 out of 10. Pretty much a whole point more.
And while it isn't always the case, it is fairly consistent if you have a look down their scores and compare them to other sites like Destructoid, or Giant Bomb, that indie games automatically score lower on IGN and triple A titles that the publishers of spend a lot of money advertising ON IGN score higher.
Or at least I don't.
I don't like IGN because the site itself is a laughable mess of inaccurate information, blatant bias, and right wing ignorance.
They don't even hide it. They are like the gaming equivalent of fox news. They do everything they can for hits. And thats all they care about.
No matter how good they are, indie games consistently get lower scores from IGN "reviewers" who usually pick over every single itty bitty flaw they have; and by contrast when it comes to triple A titles their bias is clear.
The reviews for triple A games on IGN often read like a press release direct from the marketing department of a major publisher like EA. And they almost always give a Triple A title at least 1 point on the scale of 1 to 10 more than the games deserve IMO.
Now I am sure there are some reviewers who work for them who have some integrity, and I am sure some editors do as well. As well as some of their other employees too.
The problem is that it doesn't matter if they really are bought and paid for or not; because they have given the perception; because of their own blatant biases and their rampant thirst for hits; that their site IS bought and paid for by the large publishing houses.
Granted this is only my opinion on it - how I see the situation.
And in my opinion, if you guys will forgive me for saying, IGN is a bag of dicks.
EDIT:
If you take as an example the recent indie phenomenon FTL, most review sites are giving it a 9 out of 10 or a 9.5 out of 10.
And most of the reviews don't talk about the games flaws until the third or second to last paragraph.
IGN? 8/10. And it's review begins bitching about the games flaws in the SECOND paragraph.
Compare it to a recent triple A release in Black Ops 2.
Destructoid rates CoD:Black Ops 2 at a solid 8.5 out of 10.
And IGN? 9.3 out of 10. Pretty much a whole point more.
And while it isn't always the case, it is fairly consistent if you have a look down their scores and compare them to other sites like Destructoid, or Giant Bomb, that indie games automatically score lower on IGN and triple A titles that the publishers of spend a lot of money advertising ON IGN score higher.
