Why do people hate IGN?

[V da Mighty Taco]

Review embargoes also do nothing to benefit the consumer while giving publishers a substantial control of information. Gaming websites essentially need to ask permission of the publishing companies on what they can and cannot show.

I agree with most of what you said... except this. Review embargoes exist primarily to stop someone from playing the game for as little as possible, then rushing out a half-baked review to get their reviews up before anyone else (the first reviews getting by far the most views is a provable fact). Yes, some companies DO in fact try to use embargoes to control information about their game, but that's simply not the case the majority of the time and those who do quickly end up with a sour rep across the board from both reviewers (those worth their salt, anyways) and gamers in general.

Properly done embargoes - that is, those lifted before launch - do actually increase review quality, which is good for the consumer. It's only those that wait until launch day or provide early reviews to specific reviewers that are problematic (which they are), and it's unfair to group all embargoes together under the same wide net. Don't believe me? Ask any highly trusted reviewer about it (Jim Sterling is a great example here) and they'll tell you the same thing.

 

[Scarim Coral]

All I can say is that their reviews are not geniune as I had known someone whose once worked in the gaming industry.

 

[Wasted]

Snip

That could be a potential benefit, but to me the negatives outweigh the positives. True, we do not want people to hastily rush out reviews to be the first one out, but I feel that will be their downfall. I feel a crappy rushed review won't create many fans to trust said person's future reviews and content.

No embargoes and/or early reviews allow people to make more informed preorder purchases. In some situations cancel a preorder to a poor game or see a positive review and wanted to take advantage of early preorder bonuses or discounts.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

they are, for lack of a better term, the Fox News of the gaming world. At best they're an unofficial advertisement made into a website. Whenever they TRY to act like journalists they either come off as douchebag amateurs or sensationalist idiots.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

Snip

That could be a potential benefit, but to me the negatives outweigh the positives. True, we do not want people to hastily rush out reviews to be the first one out, but I feel that will be their downfall. I feel a crappy rushed review won't create many fans to trust said person's future reviews and content.

No embargoes and/or early reviews allow people to make more informed preorder purchases. In some situations cancel a preorder to a poor game or see a positive review and wanted to take advantage of early preorder bonuses or discounts.

That's why I specifically pointed out that a good embargo is one that get's lifted before the game's launch. Launch day embargoes are generally seen as a bad thing even by reviewers, but an embargo that lifts beforehand gives people time to make well-informed decisions before they commit to buying and gives those who pre-order time to cancel it, while simultaneously ensuring that all reviewers have the time to make a proper review without having to worry about being the first one out the door.

As for your point on fans not trusting crappy, rushed reviews, the whole embargo system came about because that's exactly what wasn't happening. Turns out people will still flock to the earliest reviews of a game they're hyped for even if the reviewer's rep isn't the best. It's why even the likes of Jim Sterling and Totalbiscuit like having non-launch-day embargoes, despite them being notorious for pissing devs and publishers off with their hypercritical, unforgiving reviews and opinions.

 

[Something Amyss]

Because they do the same things as the rest of the industry, but don't do it to specifically the games I like.

Although IGN is the focus of the largest amount of hate, you will see the same basic reaction to anyone who doesn't give someone's game 10/10--MASTERPIECE! Because bias is telling you what you don't want to hear and journalism is telling you what you do want to hear.

...Unfortunately, just like the "real" news.

 

[epicdwarf]

IGN lost all respect from me after The Last Guardian incident.

They pretty much said that a "source" told them that the game was cancelled. They never revealed said source. Later, Sony made a public statement saying that The Last Guradian being canceled story was bullshit.

I never used IGN again for ANYTHING after that.

 

[Continuity]

IGN is basically the gaming media equivalent of fox news. Ubiquitous, popular, trashy, derided. Well, ok its not quite that, but very few gamers who know their stuff rate IGN highly as there are simply better alternatives. Eurogamer, rock paper shotgun, even kotaku. Hell I think I'd rather get my gaming news and reviews from NeoGAF or reddit than IGN.

 

[major_chaos]

Because they were harsh on some games that the internet has retroactively declared perfect masterpieces in bold defiance of reality (namely Godhand but IIRC there are others), and they don't hate on popular things to generate views and are thus "corporate shills". Of course they aren't going to be well liked on parts of the net where the mentality is "popular/mainstream = bad (unlessitsagameIlikethenitstotalyokforittobepopular)". Personally I reserve my contempt for places like Polygon, Quarter to three, and Kotaku, but I doubt I'm going to make many friends saying that.

 

[crimsonshrouds]

I don't pay attention to IGN so i don't hate it. To sum up most of posts I've read in this thread... IGN is the whore of the game industry. Is this an actual representation of IGN? I don't know but it sure is fun to read the hate.

 

[higgs20]

Because their scores are for sale and they generally seem to approve of the kind of shitty business practices that are driving my beloved video games industry into an early grave.

Also on a personal level I tend to find most of their presenters tooth grindingly irritating. I wanted to kill those dicks that presented their E3 coverage. My god they were shit. Just really, really shit.

 

[Dansen]

Because they were harsh on some games that the internet has retroactively declared perfect masterpieces in bold defiance of reality (namely Godhand but IIRC there are others)

Get out!

But seriously, God Hand is pretty fun. Most of the flack comes from the fact that the guy spent less than two hours reviewing the game which is really lame. However I dont see it as a problem with IGN, its really just on the guy who did the review.

OT: I don't hate IGN, I just don't care about them. I find them annoying so I ignore them, problem solved. Its always weird when people dedicate so much time to hating on the site.

 

[Rad Party God]

I used to read IGN since '03, up to '09 or so, when things started to get extremely shady (some say it was way before that, but I guess I was ignorant of it back then).

I still think that the articles from certain reviewers were worth checking out, like Matt Casamassina, Mark Bozon or Craig Harris (the Nintendo crew, basically), their articles were fun and informative, they had some neat "mailbag" articles about lots of community's questions and such, heck, they all 3 had their very own webcomic FFS!, but basically when they left, that's when things started to go downhill for me.

Basically all the douchebags that I never liked when I used to visit IGN are still there nowadays.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I don't know. While their reviews are questionable, they usually have pertinent news first. Yes they do have clickbait titles on some of their articles but then again, so does the Escapist. Just take any of their opinion stuff with a grain of salt and you should be fine. People saying they don't talk about Indie games don't know what they're talking about. I learned about a great deal of excellent Indie games from them.

Edit: Also, they're a big company that's pretty popular so it's kind of cool to hate on them. In all seriousness though, there are legitimate reasons to dislike them. They're just not as bad as a lot of people make them out to be.

 

[Something Amyss]

IGN lost all respect from me after The Last Guardian incident.

They pretty much said that a "source" told them that the game was cancelled. They never revealed said source. Later, Sony made a public statement saying that The Last Guradian being canceled story was bullshit.

I never used IGN again for ANYTHING after that.

I'm lost. Why don't you trust them? Because the source they received info from turned out to be wrong? Well hell, that happens to most publications at some point. Are you accusing them of making it up? Do you have a good faith basis for that?

 

[Windcaler]

Hate is such a strong word. I think it would be more accurate to say I dislike them, perhaps even loathe them, but hate? No I dont think that fits.

IGN most known for its controversial reviews is a site I dislike because its largely useless. Over the three months or so I spent viewing their content just about everything they put out seemed like a hype piece, made only to prop the game up and advertise it. Which is fine, if it gave information about the games it was hyping. It didnt. It reminds me of the recent controversial article here on the escapist titled "Why you should be hyped/pumped for watch dogs" that talked a lot about the game but didnt seek to inform the reader about the actual mechanics of the game. These kinds of articles seem to have no purpose beyond selling the game, often written by people who dont (or cant) elaborate on why the game is good due to massive information imbargo's. Reviewers and news sites are not in the business of selling a game, theyre in the business of informing consumers but a lot of sites seem to have forgotten that point.

Speaking purely about their reviews I have often found them useless. I understand that many people go their site, look at the score, and make their purchasing decision then. Im not one of those people. I read multiple reviews in their entirety or listen to entire video reviews. Hell one of the best reviews Ive ever watch was Epic Name bro's review of Dragon's crown because it was extremely detailed and was trying to inform consumers rather then insert the reviewer into a position of the "everyman" as if they represented the entire gaming populace. There have been many cases where Ive seen IGN, Gamespot, the escapist, and other review sites mark down a particular mechanic and I sit there going "WTF!? I like that! Why do they think its bad?" but I digress. IGN's reviews often dont inform consumers to the exact mechanics of games they just say its bad or good or whatever without any kind of elaboration. When Im reading a review Im looking for information that will help me make an informed decision about whether or not a game is worth my money. IGN fails horribly at that.

As a personal point I also dislike scores. Writing a review requires a very complicated and detailed look at a game and I dont believe that such a thing can be converted into a numerical formula. That said, I have a tendency to look down on reviews with any score atatched to them.

 

[Brian Tams]

I used to get regular emails from IGN telling me to go buy certain video games.

No, sorry, you're either reviewing video games or selling them; not both.

 

[Ryallen]

Alright, so these are all legitimate complaints, but what REALLY makes me mad is the fact that people blame IGN for calling Far Cry 3 "Skyrim with guns". I've never understood why people say that they said that, when Machinima's Adam Kovic was the one who said the above quote. Not only that, but he also admitting saying Skyrim with guns and even defended it. Nothing against Adam, I still like him and Bruce and all those guys, but why are people tearing up IGN for that when they should be tearing up Machinima?

 

[epicdwarf]

I'm lost. Why don't you trust them? Because the source they received info from turned out to be wrong? Well hell, that happens to most publications at some point. Are you accusing them of making it up? Do you have a good faith basis for that?

Sorry for the confusion. They made a massive deal about it and reported it as fact. I would not really be surprised if they made the damn thing up. Although, we need a lot more proof to say that.

 

[Strazdas]

for starters, their website is barely functional nowadays (and yes im a member).

they have more advertsements for completely unrelated items (they sell shoes, woooo) than content in there.

they have more content related to nongaming stuff than gaming stuff nowadays (seriuosly if i wanted to read about movies id go to a site about movies. and yes this applies to escapist too).

thier reviews are all over the place. some of them are fine, some of them sound like rambling of somone that read a description on wikipedia and think thats enough to make a review.

thier community is so vile i think its fair to say they can rival youtube comments.

The main pitch of the site always was "game companies more important than you".

I used to read IGN since '03, up to '09 or so, when things started to get extremely shady (some say it was way before that, but I guess I was ignorant of it back then).

yeah, it was quote fine back then but quickly devolved. glad to see somone remmeber when it actually used to be a good site.

I used to get regular emails from IGN telling me to go buy certain video games.

No, sorry, you're either reviewing video games or selling them; not both.

they still send those multiple times per week. i just got a rule to automove them to a folder called "Advertisement/IGN" and sometimes look at it for shits and giggles.