Poll: Do you trust IGN?

[DustyDrB]

Really. Really. Really?
Really. A lot of people around here hate "hipsters" because they think that group turns against anything once it becomes commercially successful. This is that same shit. So...don't be a hypocrite.

They have more access than most gaming sites (like the one you're browsing right now, ever see the video interviews around here? Not knocking. It just takes a long time to get to that point, which is something that should be understood). Their reviews are as good as anyone's, just one dude giving his opinion. Plus, they give second opinions on some of the major titles, which most sites don't do. What do you want? Who does it better and why? And...really??

 

[ALuckyChance]

I trust IGN more than Gamespot, which still isn't much. Their walkthroughs are pretty good though.

Edit: Dusty- the reason many people don't like review sites is because they don't correspond to the viewer's own opinion; even then, many of them criticize parts of a game that honestly don't matter, or even get paid by other companies to give a good review score. Ever heard of Gamespot's controversy with Kane and Lynch?

 

[the Dept of Science]

Metacritic is the only source I really trust, as any one opinion on one game can vary massively from reviewer to reviewer, so the overall trend tells you a lot more. On the other hand, Metacritic just gives a number, rather than any details or many specific criticism. So generally I just look at a couple of the top reviews and a couple of the bottom.

I don't like Metacritic in that it tends to only select reviews from american sources and ussually from news papers with there almost never being any British publications or specific film magazines or journals. I'm going to trust the critical opinion of Sight and Sound far more than Cristian Science Monitor. Plus there are instances where a film such as Moon recives a poor average score because, forigve me for saying, american critics just didn't seem to get it. If it's a british film at least some british opinions should be taken into account. Plus not all film review scores lend themselves to the 100% scale that metacritic uses, may do things in 5 star ratings or use letter grades A-F and it then becomes subjective what that would represent on a scale of 1-100. Plus as has been said by simply providing a mean average of a majority of critics removes all of the actual criticism from their reviews by reducing it to a numerical value.

Thats interesting actually, I always wondered why MC occaisionally gave some pretty unuaual results. There are tonnes of oddities, like Fight Club only getting a pretty "generally favourable" reviews (66), whereas Superman II got 99 (making it second to the Godfather). The album Canto by Los Super Seven got a score of 91, despite the highest review being 90.
I don't really consider it the be all and end of, but its very rare that I see something with a high rating that I don't enjoy or at least appreciate on some level.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

IGN is fairly biased and many of the articles are poorly written.

I mostly rely on Word of Mouth, but the two sites I do trust are Giant Bomb and, well, here.

 

[Queen Michael]

I'm that third option; I don't go there.

 

[Breaker deGodot]

Hahahaha, NO! I can't remember the last time I took their reviews with a grain of salt.

 

[Edorf]

I dont watch many reviews, but I read the IGN ones, I do take them with a grain of salt.
If I'm just going to check "how good" a game is, I usually just go to gamerankings though

 

[Kif]

Nope, not even a little bit. In fact, I make a point of not reading their reviews not least because of their bias and unusual reviewing system but because their writers seem to think the way to review a game is to give you a minute by minute break down of what happens in the game which to be honest is something I'd much prefer to find out while playing.

 

[Ch@Z]

I said Yes because I like Mega 64

 

[fearofsleep]

i abosolutely LOVE penny arcade, and they seem to view ign as absolute scum
that being said, i like the gaming news they post

 

[Downfall89]

No not really. Every game seems too high rated for me to take them seriously. I use Gamespot (loosely) for game reviews.

 

[nahnah390]

yeah IGN just doesn't seem to think through their reviews or other articles case in point http://games.ign.com/articles/944/944826p1.html

 

[Blue Musician]

Sometimes, but I rather come to The Escapist.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

*looks at reviews page*

*sees dozen of iPhone game reviews*

Nope.

 

[SomeBritishDude]

Not in the slightest. I don't trust mainstream game sites in general when it comes to reviews. I don't believe they're bribed at least in the tradition blatant sense of having cash shoved into their hands (chances are you couldn't keep something like that secret for long, though I know there are cases were it has been discovered) but I believe since these guys survive a lot off previews and exclusives rather than reviews that there's a certain element of caution with reviews that doesn't need to be there. Let's say IGN said that StarCraft II was a piece of shit that they wouldn't even let their worst enemy play. Do you think Blizzard would give them an exclusive of the next WoW expansion after seeing that?

It's one of the reasons Yahtzee is one of the few reviewers I trust despite him being in it mainly for the laughs. He's still one of the few reviews who has the balls or maybe just the pessimism to see whats bad about many of the games out there, even the best ones.

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

Ahahahaha!
Not anymore. Absolutely terrible reviews, the very definition of judging presentation and not gameplay. It has no respect from me.

 

[Julianking93]

I think I've made my opinions on IGN pretty clear in the past

 

[Gabriel Xollan]

Game Informer for the Win! Even though I didn't get the years subscription I paid for.... twice.... but third times the charm. =)