Is IGN really ignorant?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

IGN has been getting a lot of bad rep because of their reviews, lets say a game that someone finds perfect gets an 8.5 on IGN? They lash out at them, saying they're cod fanboys, and IS even clever enough to call them IGNorant.

Well, if they say a game isn't perfect, then it's not perfect! it's their job to talk about the negatives aswell as the positives. I don't want to go out and buy a crap game just because IGN sugarcoated it in a review.

Your thoughts?

I find the bigger problem being them giving perfect or near perfect scores to games that are clearly and fundamentally flawed, that one cannot even fathom having such a high score.

I think this whole "IGNorant" thing is really stupid. It's clearly not true at all. The people who say about it in regard to their reviews are total hypocrites too. Calling someone ignorant who had played a game they haven't. The hypocrisy is so blatant I don't know how these people don't realise it. IGN aren't ignorant. They're a bunch of sub-par writers who try to get traffic by stirring up bull shit.

Scrustle:
They're a bunch of sub-par writers who try to get traffic by stirring up bull shit.

Pretty much this. Their review for "I Am Alive" had me wondering if they had a monkey trying out the game.

Scrustle:
They're a bunch of sub-par writers who try to get traffic by stirring up bull shit.

This.

They're probably absolutely eating up the traffic that their website has been getting ever since Jessica what's-her-face showed up in Mass Effect Three in all her PSP licking glory. Who cares if it's bad for them? Ad revenue is Ad revenue.

Iwata:

Scrustle:
They're a bunch of sub-par writers who try to get traffic by stirring up bull shit.

Pretty much this. Their review for "I Am Alive" had me wondering if they had a monkey trying out the game.

The thing about that review which makes me suspicious is that it's an XBLA exclusive and yet they got their reviewer who is a self admitted Sony fanboy to review it. I can't say I disagree with him since I haven't played the game myself and from what I've seen of the game his criticisms seem to have been valid, but that doesn't negate the fact that he had biases and they still got him to do that review.

Iwata:

Pretty much this. Their review for "I Am Alive" had me wondering if they had a monkey trying out the game.

For what reason do you say this I wonder? They were hardly the only site that gave it a bad review.

They are ignorant of heir own guilt, and heir guilt lies in omission.
Which they would know if anyone there was an actual journalist that has been educated on proper ethics and standards that come with their territory.

But what they really are is a bunch of hobby writers who happen to like games (or have big breasts that get put into Bioware games, and then people still like to imagine they are impartial... hilarious).
And as such they really don't give a shit what they write or how they present themselves as long as the big bucks roll in, they are salesmen under false pretenses.

derintrel:

Iwata:

Pretty much this. Their review for "I Am Alive" had me wondering if they had a monkey trying out the game.

For what reason do you say this I wonder? They were hardly the only site that gave it a bad review.

They complain about the graphics. They are fine. I've bought AAA releases that look worse than this downloadable game.

They complain about the fog. The game renders distances fine, the fog only comes into play at ground level (and even then not everywhere) and adds to the sense of being lost when you're on the ground and have to resort to your map and people's voices to try and find your way..

They complain about being able to replenish stamina instantly and thus removing tension, but never mention that your resources are so scarce that often using a single piece of drink is a serious blow and has to be managed carefuly, so it really isn't "I'll just use this and be fine", it's more like "Dammit, I HAVE to use this to not die".

They try to over-simplify the game as simply being "fetch quests", when it's much more than that. I've seen them giving awesome scores to games with much baser gameplay.

They say the Iron Sights in the pistol aren't responsive, which is moronic. "Some opponents require refined accuracy", which tells me he either didn't play the game, or he played it wrong. The game instantly locks you onto ANY enemy, and requires no real aiming whatsoever other than switching enemies with the thumbstick. This isn't a shooter.

They even complain on how the bow takes "too damn long" to shoot! Yeah, that's a valid criticism! At this stage you can tell the reviewer is just pretty much phoning it in. Ever fired a bow? I have. I takes easily two or three times the time it takes in the game.

But anyway, reviews are just that: personal opinions. I care little for reviews, but even among those, IGN's have a well-deserved reputation for being nonsense.

Rock-nerd:
IGN has been getting a lot of bad rep because of their reviews, lets say a game that someone finds perfect gets an 8.5 on IGN? They lash out at them, saying they're cod fanboys, and IS even clever enough to call them IGNorant.

The Jimquisition episode Hate out of Ten talked about that issue. Well, not IGN but in general.

Well, other than that, I don't think I can add much. I don't follow IGN at all, so I have no opinion on them. I see a lot of people criticising them, though, well a lot more than praising them. Which doesn't mean anything to me.

IGN review of Eragon:

Presentation: 9.5. The font size is very readable, there are plenty of paragraph breaks, and there are very few typos.

Cover Art: 9.0. This book has a pretty picture of a dragon on the front.

Prose: 8.0. The book is easy to read, but some of the words in the author's constructed language are hard to remember.

Writing: 7.5. The story is easy to follow, but there are plot holes and the characters and dialogue aren't very good.

Lasting Appeal: 10.0. With four books and a movie, there's enough here to keep you occupied for a while.

Overall: 9.0. Amazing.

SargentToughie:

Scrustle:
They're a bunch of sub-par writers who try to get traffic by stirring up bull shit.

This.

They're probably absolutely eating up the traffic that their website has been getting ever since Jessica what's-her-face showed up in Mass Effect Three in all her PSP licking glory. Who cares if it's bad for them? Ad revenue is Ad revenue.

Oh god all the people like Jessica and that dumb chick that does the video/news coverage make me sick. Its like "HEY NERDS LOOK!! TITS!" I give them credit for using women in gaming shirts to get traffic though, its pretty smart if you think about it.

People are too picky about number reviews to be honest (METACRITIC NEEDS TO DIE). The best reviews in my opinion don't have number ratings, but actual quality writing about what the game has to offer. Also they have a really bad habit of getting people to review games who hate the series/genre/console/etc. And don't forgot the articles written to stir up fan boys "why Dark Souls is better than Skyrim" being my personal favorite.

IGN is the Kotaku of video games. They're masters of Nerd Baiting and get tons of traffic from doing it because people are easy to get ragging and posting / linking that crap EVERYWHERE.

They have some low lows, for sure. But mostly they are just guilty of pandering. They did have a good article a week or two ago about poor working conditions for game testers. It was odd seeing an article like that on IGN.

Qitz:
IGN is the Kotaku of video games. They're masters of Nerd Baiting and get tons of traffic from doing it because people are easy to get ragging and posting / linking that crap EVERYWHERE.

I thought Kotaku was the Kotaku of video games...

Don Savik:

Oh god all the people like Jessica and that dumb chick that does the video/news coverage make me sick. Its like "HEY NERDS LOOK!! TITS!" I give them credit for using women in gaming shirts to get traffic though, its pretty smart if you think about it.

People are too picky about number reviews to be honest (METACRITIC NEEDS TO DIE). The best reviews in my opinion don't have number ratings, but actual quality writing about what the game has to offer. Also they have a really bad habit of getting people to review games who hate the series/genre/console/etc. And don't forgot the articles written to stir up fan boys "why Dark Souls is better than Skyrim" being my personal favorite.

Those 2 things are things that I really can't stand about IGN. Jessica Chobot and the other one who looks and even sounds like her blonde clone are there for nothing more than eye candy. And if you ever take a look at the comments sections in ANYTHING they are in.... just don't. If you had any faith in human kind at all that is sure to destroy it.

And that Dark Souls article was complete crap too. Completely contrived and obvious flame bait. And I think I'm right in saying the article was published before either game was even released, so it was based on nothing but hype anyway! Yet again, the IGN comment sections did a great job of dealing with that maturely. You still get the occasional reference to it around the place. So fucking disgraceful and childish.

the average internet user: a reviewer has an opinion different to mine!
image

a sensible person on the internet: /faceplam why am i surrounded by immature idiots.

to elaborate a review is giving you an opinion, opinions are subjective so everyone's opinion will be different, what you think is a big deal/game breaking/fun is different to what i think is a big deal/game breaking/fun and this problem gets worse when you factor in the shitty scoring systems game reviewers use and the butthurt level of the average fan boy, making large, stupid, immature and meaningless flame wars.

DustyDrB:
They have some low lows, for sure. But mostly they are just guilty of pandering. They did have a good article a week or two ago about poor working conditions for game testers. It was odd seeing an article like that on IGN.

Qitz:
IGN is the Kotaku of video games. They're masters of Nerd Baiting and get tons of traffic from doing it because people are easy to get ragging and posting / linking that crap EVERYWHERE.

I thought Kotaku was the Kotaku of video games...

Yeah that was my thought as well :S

OT: I thought that if anything IGN's scores were considered too generous by people.

McIGN is probably the more accurate hilarious way of being sarcastic about the quality of their content.

xSKULLY:

to elaborate a review is giving you an opinion, opinions are subjective so everyone's opinion will be different, what you think is a big deal/game breaking/fun is different to what i think is a big deal/game breaking/fun and this problem gets worse when you factor in the shitty scoring systems game reviewers use and the butthurt level of the average fan boy, making large, stupid, immature and meaningless flame wars.

Well said! It's impossible to cover in 800 - 1400 words enough information to describe what every reader might want to know anyway. There are more than enough well produced non-commercial gaming websites out there that people can go to if they're concerned about the potential bias of a reviewer who's in bed with generous PR or whatever.

xSKULLY:
the average internet user: a reviewer has an opinion different to mine!
image

a sensible person on the internet: /faceplam why am i surrounded by immature idiots.

to elaborate a review is giving you an opinion, opinions are subjective so everyone's opinion will be different, what you think is a big deal/game breaking/fun is different to what i think is a big deal/game breaking/fun and this problem gets worse when you factor in the shitty scoring systems game reviewers use and the butthurt level of the average fan boy, making large, stupid, immature and meaningless flame wars.

Actually a lot of the criticism of IGN has nothing to do with the review scores (after all, every critic gets flack for what they like/criticise about games) Although their review scores are incredibly suspect at best.

They write deliberately trolling articles about issues in games they know are sensitive issues, and talk absolute bollocks about them, just to stir up traffic for their site. You can't read an IGN article with a straight face because most of the reviewers that write this dribble are so full of bile that if the theory of the 4 humours was correct they would all have died long ago from Choleric disease.

They also employ their female reviewers pretty much just for their looks. In everything they use the lowest business practices to get people onto their site. Let's just say they don't exactly do anything positive for the gaming community or its perception by modern media.

Like others have said already. Many of their contributors are unprofessional and they are far too close to the publishers. Plus, most of their articles are flamebait made only to bring in more hits.

Iwata:

Scrustle:
They're a bunch of sub-par writers who try to get traffic by stirring up bull shit.

Pretty much this. Their review for "I Am Alive" had me wondering if they had a monkey trying out the game.

Yeah, I got that impression as well. Either that, or the reviewer just didn't like the game and let that seep too much into his review.

Scrustle:
I think this whole "IGNorant" thing is really stupid. It's clearly not true at all. The people who say about it in regard to their reviews are total hypocrites too. Calling someone ignorant who had played a game they haven't. The hypocrisy is so blatant I don't know how these people don't realise it. IGN aren't ignorant. They're a bunch of sub-par writers who try to get traffic by stirring up bull shit.

I'd say that at least one of their guys, matt fowler who does the pro-wrestling reviews is good at writing, but other than him, yeah. IGN abandons quality for flame wars to get the most pageviews and comments on their site.

Although strangely I've found that Australian side of IGN produce pretty intelligent original content, in comparison to the rest of the contributors anyway. I think they were the first to start running an opinion piece video series too. I don't know if it's still going but I remember it being pretty good. The funny thing is they actually names the series after this "IGNorant" meme, or at least I think they did. They were called "IGN AU rant", and at the beginning of every episode they said "it's pronounced 'ignorant'!" in a jokey way.

Well it's usually the other way around, where they give otherwise bad games amazing review scores.

They fault some titles for being just a repeat of whatever the game before it was, yet gives CoD almost perfect marks every single time.

The Mass Effect review was pretty iffy if you ask me. They have one of their employees star in the game and then happen to give it a perfect score. Coincidence? I honestly can't think of a good reason why Chobot was in ME3, she's a terrible voice actor (I almost cringe) and she's just a distracting presence. Bioware apparently even knew how bad she is because you're allowed to kick her off the ship anytime you want. The only reaon that makes sense is it was some kind of agreement between the two, IGN get's the massive amount of attention and ME3 gets great scores on one of the mega review corps.
Sure, saying IGNorant isnt exactly clever but that doesn't make the critisism any less valid. IGN is all paid off by the giant companies as far as I'm concerned. Which is why I don't watch their stuff.

Kahunaburger:
IGN review of Eragon:

Presentation: 9.5. The font size is very readable, there are plenty of paragraph breaks, and there are very few typos.

Cover Art: 9.0. This book has a pretty picture of a dragon on the front.

Prose: 8.0. The book is easy to read, but some of the words in the author's constructed language are hard to remember.

Writing: 7.5. The story is easy to follow, but there are plot holes and the characters and dialogue aren't very good.

Lasting Appeal: 10.0. With four books and a movie, there's enough here to keep you occupied for a while.

Overall: 9.0. Amazing.

But i thought people generally liked the books. What i heard was that the books were great, but the movie was shit.

OT: I pretty much just watched the IGN review of Skullgirls and it pretty much represented everything i dislike about IGN because they just don't seem credible in what they say. It's like they don't even believe in their own praise (which drags on a lot) and then just skim over the things that make it a lesser good game.

So yeah... i don't think they balance their reviews very well (because they have been nown to tilt both ways) and in my mind that makes them unreliable for proper reviewing.

Fleetfiend:

Iwata:

Scrustle:
They're a bunch of sub-par writers who try to get traffic by stirring up bull shit.

Pretty much this. Their review for "I Am Alive" had me wondering if they had a monkey trying out the game.

Yeah, I got that impression as well. Either that, or the reviewer just didn't like the game and let that seep too much into his review.

This happens relatively often with IGN. If you don't have a massive marketing hype machine and your game is difficult, niche, or complex, the review's basically a crap shoot.

I have intense dislike for them because IGN are closer to the publishers than they are to the player. And thats bad for a gaming website that does reviews and news.

Of course their writing is also terrible, but whatever. Some of the writing on this website can be pretty damn terrible too.

Ulquiorra4sama:

Kahunaburger:
IGN review of Eragon:

Presentation: 9.5. The font size is very readable, there are plenty of paragraph breaks, and there are very few typos.

Cover Art: 9.0. This book has a pretty picture of a dragon on the front.

Prose: 8.0. The book is easy to read, but some of the words in the author's constructed language are hard to remember.

Writing: 7.5. The story is easy to follow, but there are plot holes and the characters and dialogue aren't very good.

Lasting Appeal: 10.0. With four books and a movie, there's enough here to keep you occupied for a while.

Overall: 9.0. Amazing.

But i thought people generally liked the books. What i heard was that the books were great, but the movie was shit.

They were both terrible by normal standards. The book at least had an excuse - it was written by a kid who was homeschooled. If, on the other hand, you want to see what the world looks like to a kid with above-average verbal/linguistic skills, below-average social skills, and little to no breadth or depth of real-world experience, they're a somewhat interesting read.

Hero in a half shell:

xSKULLY:
the average internet user: a reviewer has an opinion different to mine!
image

a sensible person on the internet: /faceplam why am i surrounded by immature idiots.

to elaborate a review is giving you an opinion, opinions are subjective so everyone's opinion will be different, what you think is a big deal/game breaking/fun is different to what i think is a big deal/game breaking/fun and this problem gets worse when you factor in the shitty scoring systems game reviewers use and the butthurt level of the average fan boy, making large, stupid, immature and meaningless flame wars.

Actually a lot of the criticism of IGN has nothing to do with the review scores (after all, every critic gets flack for what they like/criticise about games) Although their review scores are incredibly suspect at best.

They write deliberately trolling articles about issues in games they know are sensitive issues, and talk absolute bollocks about them, just to stir up traffic for their site. You can't read an IGN article with a straight face because most of the reviewers that write this dribble are so full of bile that if the theory of the 4 humours was correct they would all have died long ago from Choleric disease.

They also employ their female reviewers pretty much just for their looks. In everything they use the lowest business practices to get people onto their site. Let's just say they don't exactly do anything positive for the gaming community or its perception by modern media.

ah I dont watch IGN any more so I was not fully aware of the issue and semi-dismissed it as fanboys arguing (again), thanks for clearing it up for me. I thought it was due to score's or opinions based on what the OP said

OT: if IGN want negative attention why are we giving it to them? the best way to kill trolls is to ignore them, giving them negative attention is what they want and if we give it to them then they win

Well, it's like the console wars. People tend to flock towards reviewers and critics they tend to agree with. IGN has become a big deal because a LOT of people like it, and agree with it's point of view, making it one of the more influential sources when it comes to gaming and geek culture. As a result those who don't agree with it, tend to be increasingly resentful because of all the people that do, and the weight it pulls.

As odd as it sounds I think IGN winds up exercising a little more freedom of opinion than other similar sites, even if it's still very topheavy. While IGN is manipulated by the industry due to IGN's dependance on it, the sheer popularity of IGN and size of it's organization gives it a little counter-pull, as does it branching out into more things than just games. As a result while IGN can't tank a popular/expensive AAA title from a big publisher, it can be less than glowing about it in a way that other similar organizations can't. Thus series fanboys get upset when they become used to "everyone" loving their mania of choice and see a major organization saying otherwise even if they aren't exactly negative. The same applies to their high ratings of products that otherwise wind up getting panned, which usually amounts to the amount of advertising dollars behind them (ie the less money behind a game, the more honest you can be), in cases like that it's usually IGN's reviewers simply liking something that other sources didn't, and that is why we have differant reviewers and critics, with differant points of view.

I'm not a huge IGN fan, this is just how I see things.

My thoughts on any reviewer are that you need to become familiar with what that reviewer says about a game and compare it to what you think about it when you've played it.

To use an example here at escapist, I've come to accept many of the comments that Yahtzee makes about a game. While he does tend towards hyperbole, the heart of what he says about many of the games he reviews seem to correlate with my experiences (look at either of the two Tomb Raider reviews). His Fallout 3 & New Vegas reviews (and Oblivion--since we're dealing with the same engine) also seem to measure up with my experience. This does not mean that everything he says must be heeded.

My relationship with MovieBob is similar to this. I have had to watch a couple of the movies and re-watch his reviews to see I my experience is affected by his point-of-view. There are concerns that Bob has that I don't have with movies, but I can respect where he is coming from and, in many cases, get a new perspective on the movie experience as a result of it.

I think it is also a good thing to read/watch multiple reviews to see what many reviewers are picking up on as strengths and weaknesses in the game/movie. Look no further than the Amy reviews. I had been interested in the game, but lost all interest because of the multitude of reviews that pointed out the very things that often frustrate me when I am playing a game. Similarly, I have paused in purchasing I Am Alive because of the tepid reviews it received.

So, to answer the question, if IGN is unduly rosy when publishing its reviews, I can temper it with Yahtzee or G4 or any number of reviews around the web.

I will summarize anything I say with a youtube comment.

You cannot spell ignorant without IGN.

Eeew, I don't really read reviews. I used to listen to the Xbox specific podcast though I like the personalities of the writers a lot more in relaxed settings and it was interesting to see what they said about games and other issues when they were just talking to each other in a casual way rather than a paid review. I haven't listened in a while though I quit about the time Hilary got a promotion or something. Maybe I should start listening again...

IGN is extremely ignorant. You haven't looked very hard, have you?

Often times, they will rant about how "poorly" they think a game did something that it wasn't even setting out to do, like Zapper: One Wicked Cricket!. Heck, they were blaming it for things it never even did! They also say things that make you wonder if they've even played videogames, before. Take their "review" of [Prototype], for example. They whined about this one attack you have that plummets you down and you have to have to hold the "X" and "B" buttons together and it's so hard to do tha- ABSOLUTE GARBAGE! Have these people ever even seen an X-Box 360 controller? It's so easy! And I love how they completely neglect saying anything about the PS3 and PC versions. They just stick to the 360. And the attack doesn't plummet you down. It's a homing attack. They nitpick at the stupidest, teeny detail we might not have even noticed and completely blow it way out of proportion!

And, of course, I will never forget what was said in their review for Assassins Creed. It went something like...

"We won't give away what happens at the beginning of this game, but, we'll spoil the ending of The Sixth Sense for you!

It isn't about the ratings at all. It's the absolute foolishness they keep spitting out all the time.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked