Why do people hate IGN?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

I get that IGN is the mutual center of hatred for reviews. People make fun of IGN for giving really high reviews to otherwise bad games. I get that. What I've never understood is why. Beyond their Call of Duty reviews, they have never given a score to a game that's higher than what seems reasonable. They haven't given good reviews to games that are terrible, at least to my knowledge. And, my main complaint, no one in IGN has ever called Far Cry 3 "Skyrim with guns". That was Machinima, and yet, ignoring any sort of evidence or proof otherwise, people continue to ridicule IGN for a quote that was made by Adam Kovic, one that he has actually admitted to making and defended.

they are complacent to the shit of this industry, is not rare to see them promoting pre-order bonuses and shit

to be honest, even gamespot, the site that was once accused of firing one of their reviewers because of pressure from publishers, does better fucking journalism

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/gamestops-involvement-in-development-is-another-bl/1100-6421040/

http://www.gamespot.com/videos/the-point-yogscasts-cancelled-kickstarter-the-miss/2300-6420305/

their editorial has more integrity

They're seen as too big to be honest or high quality anymore. They're pretty much the #1 game informant on the whole Internet now, bigger than the likes of PC Gamer or Machinima, and I find it really, really hard to believe they aren't living in the pockets of big video game publishers while shunning or straight up not acknowledging smaller indie games. I've heard of (but can't currently find evidence) of them constantly stealing news stories from other sites and rewriting as their own original stories, even if it means taking the exact same picture a smaller site used and cropping it to remove watermarks that aren't related to IGN.

I used to read IGN's reviews way back on PS2 when their reviews were 4-5 pages long and I could actually learn a thing or 2 about the game. Of course, you can't forget IGN's review of God Hand at a 3/10 while then listing it as one of PS2's best 100 games with the following description, "It's easy to mistake God Hand for a terrible game. But look past the rough exterior, the abrasive presentation, the comically bad environments and tongue-in-cheekiness of the characters, and -- we promise -- there's a diamond of gameplay to be found."

Game reviews are just so bad across the board and IGN is just the epitome of it all as they seem to rate games slightly higher than everyone else while being the most known. There's only a few people like Jim Sterling that even properly review games. Even Yahtzee's reviews (which really aren't reviews) have more credence than most professional reviews.

From my limited experience with them, they've said a lot of stupid shit or things that are just plain incorrect. If you don't even know what you're talking about yet talk anyway, well, you're already in my bad book, regardless of any financial details.

Because they're sellouts.
Most of the big gaming sites are like this tho'. If they don't get payed for the promotional materials they do, they are doing it just to earn devs/pubs favor.
Ask the tough questions and you don't get invited for the next preview event. Hype their stuff and you're their favorite "journalist".

Besides the condition of their journalistic integrity already mentioned in this thread, I hate how their ads were so obnoxious, with annoying flash pop-ups and auto-playing videos. I gave them up about 8 years ago because it would slow both my mac and my dell to a halt(granted they both were old but still) when most other sites worked just fine. I'm glad I did it then because that was before their reviews really started brown nosing the highest bidders.

Phoenixmgs:

That image in the spoiler sums everyone's hate of IGN up perfectly. 7.5 for obvious Wii shovelware? Seems legit. Though the good thing about IGN is that if you want a good review from them, all you need is some loose change.

I think the dislike comes from the problem with all gaming websites. They are there to sell a product first, and inform the consumer second. So there are huge conflicts of interest between reviewing a game while having its advertisement plastered all over the website. 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. It is no surprise that the most advertised games usually get more favorable reviews.

Could you imagine if the film industry had his much influence over their critics?

With the huge surge of gaming channels on YouTube I feel that finding a few people that share your gaming interests is the best way to inform yourself. Unfortunately, gaming publishers know this so they are trying to control large gaming channels as well (i.e. EA Ronku).

Either way...

"Believe the Hype"

A number of controversial reviews coupled with a general distrust for internet success.

Personally I just don't agree with a lot of their reviews and find them fairly inflated and uninformative. I'm also not a fan of their editorial content. Not that this translates to hate on my part, but it definitely keeps me from reading their stuff.

Corporate shills. Industry apologists. Lack of actual criticism in their articles and reviews.

Take your pick. They give people lot's of reasons to choose from.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason I dislike IGN is because of the low quality of their reviews. The reviews I've watched have been delivered awkwardly and in a dull monotone, which is fine for a solo reviewer earning his wings on Youtube, but not for a major operation like IGN. They have condemned games and given them "terrible" scores of 5/10 (the lowest score possible apparently) for next to no reason, such as "I wish that function was mapped to the X button rather than the A button", and championed other games for equally silly reasons, such as "the story reminded me of a book I like". I get that reviews are entirely subjective, but I feel like when you're as big as IGN you have to consider that what you say will probably directly influence sales, which will directly influence the lives of the people who made the game. Again, were they smaller, this wouldn't really be a problem, but since they are so big I think they should act more professionally.

I never really minded IGN (apart from their abysmal forums) but many of their reviews had considerably unprofessional statements in them, for example, in their Pokemon HG/SS review, they criticized it for having "the same Pokemon" seemingly obvious to the fact that its a remake and it has way more Pokemon in it.

Also, in their Kirby: Triple Deluxe review, they said the campaign was too short...

Yeah, the campaign of a Kirby game...that was just silly.

I don't personally hate IGN. Actually, I still go on there -- but I don't really pay attention to their reviews, most of what I look at is the insanely stupid comment section to cheer myself up and remind myself that I'm not the dumbest person in the world. I suppose I do also sometimes go there for news on games, specifically Xbox One games. Sadly, while they're the only major site I go on that isn't constantly trying to convince me I should like the PS4 more, the quality of their "reporting" still does kind of suck.

EDIT: I just realized I said "news" twice. The first mention was supposed to be "reviews," and I've changed it accordingly.

Can't spell ignorant without IGN.

Basically, they are hated because they review bad games highly, and good games either ignored or poorly. They are a mouthpiece for bad publishers to hype up the latest Call of Assassin's Fifa.

Well if their stuff seems reasonable then you can't really ever have a problem with them.
But people who can cut through the bullshit will quickly notice this is a house of salesmen pretending to give independent insight... If you are selling shit then just fucking say so, don't try and hustle me because after that I can't trust a single damn thing you say.

I don't even care that much about IGN. I read their posts about upcoming games, but I rarely bother to read most of their reviews.

I read it just for the movie and gaming news. I know people have issues with their reviews and if they write great reviews for money. But people can just ignore them or just go to other sites that they trust.

Summarising IGN is very easy.

So far they have put up 1'996 articles, videos and promotions for Titanfall, most of them before the release date.

One Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Six articles.

IGN published more content about Titanfall than there is content in Titanfall.

That's really IGN in a nutshell, if a publisher gives them money they will say anything about anything and they'll keep saying it until the money stops, which was about a month after release in Titanfall's case.

Wasted:
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.

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

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.

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.

Wasted:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked