Obvious? Why? It's not obvious to me. Who in the world is going to look at this review score, and go from "Wasn't going to read IGN's review" to "Must click the link now and read this review for it's slightly different opinion based on score"? You know it's okay for a reviewer to not enjoy something as much as others. Do you remember Jeff Gerstman and Kane & Lynch scandal that he got fired for? How are you so vehemently upset when you can't possible have had a chance to even develop your own opinion on the matter? Or have you played it yet? And...why do you care? What's on the line for you?
Props to IGN for being honest. Every review I read is complaining about how "not fun" it is, frustrating and boring....but they end up giving it a 9 or 9.5 for "respect to kojima reasons". Just be honest and review it without bias.
Never base your ideas on how a game will play based on just one source. That's why I'm going through multiple sources/channels.
One pattern I see is that those who trash the game never elaborate on the mechanics, they just call it boring and proceed to dump on it. Others go into detail regarding things like the void outs, importance of delivery planning, asynchronous multiplayer, etc.
Yeah, that shit was by far the most egregious example of shit journalism from IGN. That and when they scored Prey a 4 anyways. AI was just more painful because it is one of the best horror games of the past decade IMO
Doesn't really go against my point regarding Red Dead 2 where they ignored a host of issues, only to then question Days Gone on some of those same issues. Keep in mind, I brought this up many times before this day.
OMG, this integrity-less score seems to indicate that the person at ign who reviewed this game felt differently about it than the other people who had generally similar opinions about it. What a god-awful "journalist" that person is. That score is purely for the clicks as obviously they couldn't actually have an opinion that isn't borderline identical to a handful of other website's employees.
I get your point. Personally I just don't, and haven't for years, bothered to care or take official site reviews seriously. Even if this game is trash, which I doubt, I still think you would see the same review scores you see now with a slew of 100's and so forth. I think the 100's are clickbaity as well. I just don't trust them at all and would rather see the general consensus of the masses, even if that means bobbing and weaving through a few metabombs here and there.
And that is literally what I was pointing out, that one person (the ign reviewer) did not share the opinions of a handful of others (other reviewers who gave the game similar scores). I don't know if I worded it poorly or you misunderstood that. It's as if the ign reviewer is capable of having an opinion that has an element of uniqueness to it, like it was his own or something. Almost as though his perspective is not exactly the same as those of his colleagues and peers and yet this person is somehow able to exist in the world, and have a career within the same industry and yet not share an identical point of view. Utterly disgusting, what is the world of modern gaming journalism coming to where one reviewer's opinion of a game does not mirror what multiple others have said via their own publications? #cancelign #boycottgamingjournalism
I gave up on review scores long ago. And that’s after doing them myself for years.
It’s all fucking bullshit. Most don’t play the games to completion and rush to make release dates.
Nor do these jabronies appreciate games like those who actually pay money for them.
It’s just about hitting a checklist of features... and now you have to consider that politics influence review scores.
the industry is fucked. Don’t trust review scores.... ever. Just play games. Once again, the last Jedi was a huge pile of shit yet it got reviewed like the best movie ever ... same shit applies to gaming.
Or do we need to see more gameplay videos of game reviewers who can’t play a shooter for their fucking lives