Is IGN Biased?

[Dexiro]

Urgh I had a friend once that refused to believe that professional reviews were biased, and when I told him that user reviews were more reliable he said "no they're just peoples opinions" >.>

All reviews are opinions, you just know that with user reviews they're not getting tipped off by the developer to give a favourable review.

 

[xXx5Niq3rzxXx]

I don't think so. I trust their reviews. If it wasn't for them, I would never had bought Mass Effect, Cid Mier's Civilization Revoulution and many other games. Metacritic is more reliable though.

 

[Talal Provides]

Why do so many gamers think you can test games like consumer reports tests dishwashers? And even more frightening, why do most game critics seem to think so, too?

 

[migo]

Lots of reviewers make some stupid criticisms like that.

 

[Oedipus 3000]

Every generation or form of game journalism is biased and favoring to certain things each generation. Game journalism tends to go far more to what the consumer wants then actually giving good unbiased feedback on the products.

Take for instance the defunk magazine EGM, when the PSX/N64 era was out they were all for RPG's and gave most of them good reviews, while when the PS2/Xbox/GC era, most RPG's were reviewed poorly and even games such as True crimes were given good reviews and now anything which doesn't have a gun in it has to be viewed with a different approuch.

Also, we're now thinking about playing for the home team more then before, since Video Games were predominately focused with Japan. if you give good reviews to American products or American Games, more Americans will buy those American products over the Japanese ones. That's why you see far far FAR more publishing companies citing the death of the JRPG genre, even if most people wouldn't have bought those games in the first place and the genre have mostly been niche since it's beginnings in the state.

it's all roughly subjective but the flavor of the month really influences what the hell they are going to say is good and what isn't. Remember when Halo 2 came out and NO ONE said the single player was shit? it got glowing reviews from everyone and they all gave it perfect scores even though the single player mode was a piece of shit.

 

[JWRosser]

I do like to see what reviews give games, but at the end of the day, I'm a big boy and can make my own choices. I'll watch/read the review to see the pros and cons, but the final score probably won't affect me.
I still want to play Force Unleashed 2 even though it got bad reviews (though I am waiting until it drops in price as I know it's a short game....)
Also, this

Personally I refuse to believe that a game should ever genuinely warrant a perfect score. Mostly because no game is inheritly perfect.

For example, the Mario Galaxy games got amazing scores but personally I found them a bit dull...

 

[warm slurm]

lol because Mass Effect 2 should get a perfect score? It's terrible compared to the first.

 

[NoCure]

Personally I refuse to believe that a game should ever genuinely warrant a perfect score. Mostly because no game is inheritly perfect.

I was just going to say yes, but the above quote sums up my feelings to a T.

 

[Anti Nudist Cupcake]

Mass effect to is over rated, it's got a rating of 80 out of a hundred in my book.

 

[binvjoh]

Not really. They just seem afraid to have any original opinions, worrying that the greater masses won't understand the fact that ALL reviews are subjective.

I watch IGN mostly because they have HD fotage and interesting "exclusive" information on several games, not because I need their help to pick which games to buy.

For anyone who wants funny and honest reviews from two middle-age guys, full of vulgar language and hilarity, I suggest checking out NoobToob over at Youtube. They don't use a number-based system, rather just a simple thumbs-up or thumbs-down.

Sorta off topic, but Id like to see Mass Effect 1 also on the PS3 so that I can play the first before I get the second game.

It's pretty cheap on Steam if you got a computer that can handle it. Unless of course the reason you want to play it is the transfering of your character.

 

[Talal Provides]

Not really. They just seem afraid to have any original opinions, worrying that the greater masses won't understand the fact that ALL reviews are subjective.

This is the problem with game criticism as a whole. The games press is so obsessed with being taken seriously that they try to present themselves as being soullessly objective, that they are totally untainted by anything resembling an opinion. This is great when you're delivering news, but there is no way you can review a game that isn't totally subjective. Well, there is, and that's what they do, they spend a couple thousand words describing the game's features and then giving it the same score as everybody else. Games will never grow as a form of entertainment until people actually start critiquing the games as they should be. There should never, ever be a consensus when it comes to opinions of a creative work.

 

[Susan Arendt]

After Watching a Video Review of the ps3 version of Mass Effect 2 They gave it a 9.5 And one of the Cons were 'Late to PS3' Even through he talks about how this is one of the best versions with ALL the Dlc put into it. so we lost 0.5 because we were late.

Im not angry about it just seems a little unfair.

Biased against...what, exactly?

 

[04whim]

Biased against...what, exactly?

I think he/she means "fan boys" without using the term... There's an idea I can get behind, I grant you. Don't like the term. Although the platform Mr. OP is suggesting they're fan boys of is left a little ambiguous. Looking back on it, that's probably what you meant, but anyway.

As Yahtzee said in the mailbag showdown; 'all reviews are personal opinions'. Though it does seem weird that they lost some points on it just because they needed extra development time on the PS3 or Microsoft paid them for semi exclusivity or ducks ate their entire collection of PS3 development tools or whatever.

 

[Woodsey]

Sorta off topic, but Id like to see Mass Effect 1 also on the PS3 so that I can play the first before I get the second game.

Not going to happen - MS have exclusivity (of the consoles at least).

OT: Wow, a whole 0.5 from a meaningless score. And it was probably a joke anyway, I doubt they actually knocked marks off for that.

But no, they're not a particularly good site.

 

[Talal Provides]

As Yahtzee said in the mailbag showdown; 'all reviews are personal opinions'. Though it does seem weird that they lost some points on it just because they needed extra development time on the PS3

Why would two different reviews done by two different people with about a year between when they were written have the exact same score?

 

[binvjoh]

Not really. They just seem afraid to have any original opinions, worrying that the greater masses won't understand the fact that ALL reviews are subjective.

This is the problem with game criticism as a whole. The games press is so obsessed with being taken seriously that they try to present themselves as being soullessly objective, that they are totally untainted by anything resembling an opinion. This is great when you're delivering news, but there is no way you can review a game that isn't totally subjective. Well, there is, and that's what they do, they spend a couple thousand words describing the game's features and then giving it the same score as everybody else. Games will never grow as a form of entertainment until people actually start critiquing the games as they should be. There should never, ever be a consensus when it comes to opinions of a creative work.

I think the terminology could be the problem. What they're giving is an overview, not and actual reivew and then they attach an arbitrary score at the end of it.

For a review to actually mean something you need a closer connection to the reviewer themself, or at least confidence in that the person actually "knows his/her stuff".

 

[Susan Arendt]

As Yahtzee said in the mailbag showdown; 'all reviews are personal opinions'. Though it does seem weird that they lost some points on it just because they needed extra development time on the PS3

Why would two different reviews done by two different people with about a year between when they were written have the exact same score?

Exactly. And, while I only skimmed, I didn't see any mention of "we knocked this down because it's late." Everything I saw said that the game was excellent, awesome, go play it like nao.

It's a fantastically positive review, and one that seems appropriately on par with the 360 version - I'm not seeing any bias here in any direction.

 

[04whim]

Why would two different reviews done by two different people with about a year between when they were written have the exact same score?

If the scores were objective, they would surely be the same. As I said, reviews are subjective.

That's why they should be the same and why they aren't.

 

[binvjoh]

Why would two different reviews done by two different people with about a year between when they were written have the exact same score?

If the scores were objective, they would surely be the same. As I said, reviews are subjective.

That's why they should be the same and why they aren't.

Wait, what?

Either I'm slow, or you just contradicted yourself.

 

[04whim]

Why would two different reviews done by two different people with about a year between when they were written have the exact same score?

If the scores were objective, they would surely be the same. As I said, reviews are subjective.

That's why they should be the same and why they aren't.

Wait, what?

Either I'm slow, or you just contradicted yourself.

Well, I grant you I could use some more sleep, but I don't think I contradicted myself. I just had an opinion on how things should be which is different to the way they are.