-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Good god, what did IGN do to this review?
- Thread starter Darklord
- Start date
- Status
jonnybryce
Member
dfyb said:
Holy shit that's embarrassing and unbelievable.
toypop said:
Fixed.
Seriously, I did some reviews for a website a few years ago and we always allocated games to the person who would be the most experienced/who could potentially get the most enjoyment out of it.
I usually did reviews on fighting games and racing games. You need to have someone who is familiar with the genre so they have a point of comparison.
I don't play RTS's, but I would never say a game was bad because I personally didn't like it.
Nothing wrong with having a review by someone experienced and in this case, just state this game is not for everyone. Usually you'd understand whether you wanted a game by reading a review by someone who actually bothered to write one properly. Also people tend to look at scores first before reading a review - this would put them off immediately looking at a 2.0
^^edit just noticed the above. WHAT BULLSHIT.
SapientWolf said:
The problem is you probably wanna consider that in the review rather than blindly using it as a tool to convey that you don't understand it NOR do you even want to.
At a certain point he should have hit delete and outsourced it or just let the UK review serve as a worldwide score.
Going by the logic used to defend the review, every game should never get a good score, ever, since if you pick random people on the street half of them would probably get bored or annoyed when playing it.
You don't see this kind of shit in movies and music reviews. It's like reviewing a classic music album and saying it's terrible because you can't dance to it. That kind of stuff goes into blogs and personal journals, not supposedly professional reviews.
You don't see this kind of shit in movies and music reviews. It's like reviewing a classic music album and saying it's terrible because you can't dance to it. That kind of stuff goes into blogs and personal journals, not supposedly professional reviews.
Dang it's like saying Command and Conquer RTS is dogshit because it doesn't play like Gears of War or Killzone. :lol
Fair enough if the reviewer's opinion is that he doesn't like the game but he's expecting a whole different genre, all he had to do was read the description on the back of the game case to know what he was getting into at the very least.
It's amazing how something like this can happen on a popular gaming website, and on more than one occasion.
Fair enough if the reviewer's opinion is that he doesn't like the game but he's expecting a whole different genre, all he had to do was read the description on the back of the game case to know what he was getting into at the very least.
It's amazing how something like this can happen on a popular gaming website, and on more than one occasion.
Callibretto
Member
ok, I just read the frist pages and have the urge to comment that's been nagging me for a while. someone may already post similar comment, but here goes.
I really think any reviews need to explicitly state what their expectation of the game and who the target audience is. expectation and target audience can skew a review score that it may be misleading to some people.
look at the review in op. basically, the reviewer is not the target audience nor he has the right expectation of the game (he want Fifa, not Fifa Manager), he then continues to score it badly, but when gamer read that reviews, they may got bad impression of the game even though there's a chance he might actually enjoy manager type game and actually is the target audience of the game.
I think this applies to a lot of reviews with wide range of scores from really bad to really good(aside from some truly biased reviews). even a really good game can look bad if the reviewer has wrong expectation of the game. as a reviewer, it's their job to make clear to the consumer what the target audience is and clearly explain the consumer so we have the right expectation of the game.
applying my kind of reasoning to KZ2 in that wildly hot topic of 1up previews, the problem with 1up previews is that the journalist themselves are not sure what are their expectation of the game and not doing a really good job to explain it to reader. they don't think the game is new or innovative, they compare it a lot to CoD but they also said it's nothing like CoD, Halo and GeoW. only one person in 1up shows said that it reminds him to GRAW, that's a much better explanation than other guys at 1up who don't know what to think of the game and resort to simply said game is not fun or helghast is bad art design.
there goes my long rant about reviews in general these days. feel a little relieved after typing all that down. sigh
I really think any reviews need to explicitly state what their expectation of the game and who the target audience is. expectation and target audience can skew a review score that it may be misleading to some people.
look at the review in op. basically, the reviewer is not the target audience nor he has the right expectation of the game (he want Fifa, not Fifa Manager), he then continues to score it badly, but when gamer read that reviews, they may got bad impression of the game even though there's a chance he might actually enjoy manager type game and actually is the target audience of the game.
I think this applies to a lot of reviews with wide range of scores from really bad to really good(aside from some truly biased reviews). even a really good game can look bad if the reviewer has wrong expectation of the game. as a reviewer, it's their job to make clear to the consumer what the target audience is and clearly explain the consumer so we have the right expectation of the game.
applying my kind of reasoning to KZ2 in that wildly hot topic of 1up previews, the problem with 1up previews is that the journalist themselves are not sure what are their expectation of the game and not doing a really good job to explain it to reader. they don't think the game is new or innovative, they compare it a lot to CoD but they also said it's nothing like CoD, Halo and GeoW. only one person in 1up shows said that it reminds him to GRAW, that's a much better explanation than other guys at 1up who don't know what to think of the game and resort to simply said game is not fun or helghast is bad art design.
there goes my long rant about reviews in general these days. feel a little relieved after typing all that down. sigh
benjipwns
Banned
He's the sports editor.Ninja99 said:
Ah, yes. I too remember the good ol days of classic game reviews that always followed an objective empirical method. When GameFan, Game Players and "Scary Larry" gave a score to a game, I knew they had applied a empirical critical theory to the game instead of just giving me their opinion.
sleeping_dragon
Banned
has anyone mention Killzone 2 in this thread yet?
Tim the Wiz
Banned
This thread was good for one thing. All the IGN apologists are now on my ignore list. Some of the logic used to defend or "talk down" the stupidity of this review has been unbelievably atrocious.
Nathan Rain
Banned
It's a review guys, seriously don't get distraught over stupid, mindless shit, dig?
I'm not attacking anyone, but c'mon, this kind of these don't matter.
I'm not attacking anyone, but c'mon, this kind of these don't matter.
Darth Sonik
we need more FPS games
This is what IGN does to arguably the greatest games franchise ever?
I don't play these footie management games any more, but I used to in the good old Championship Manager days.
SI produces something that has no peers every year. Despite the millions of sales no one has come close to these guys, in any management game, let alone sports management. EA constantly fail at the task, despite their size, wealth and power to replicate their achievements.
Hell American sports are more stat friendly & stat focussed, and no management game even exists that rivals FM. I guess in some ways its an advantage that there is no official stat trackers in football ala American sports as this makes FM a tool as well as a game.
I don't play these footie management games any more, but I used to in the good old Championship Manager days.
SI produces something that has no peers every year. Despite the millions of sales no one has come close to these guys, in any management game, let alone sports management. EA constantly fail at the task, despite their size, wealth and power to replicate their achievements.
Hell American sports are more stat friendly & stat focussed, and no management game even exists that rivals FM. I guess in some ways its an advantage that there is no official stat trackers in football ala American sports as this makes FM a tool as well as a game.
What a joke.
So according to IGN US, this is the 15th most terrible game in the entire history of PC gaming. It boggles the mind thet they actually let the reviewer score it that low. Especially since it's already won an IGN editors choice award. Makes at least one of them look retarded...
So according to IGN US, this is the 15th most terrible game in the entire history of PC gaming. It boggles the mind thet they actually let the reviewer score it that low. Especially since it's already won an IGN editors choice award. Makes at least one of them look retarded...
Buttonbasher
Member
Journalistic integrity be damned.Nathan Rain said:
*Insert Kotaku quote about losing credibility*
A person who's qualified to review 'a' game is qualified to review any game. There shouldn't be a heavy reliance on genre-knowledge just in order to play a game.dfyb said:
Regardless of whether you've played an FPS before, you should be able to understand how Bioshock is played. Similarly, regardless of whether you've played a soccer manager game before, you should be able to understand how Soccer Manager is played.
Communicating the rules of the game to the player is vital.
Mohonky
Member
I'm continually baffled by some of these reviews, especially when such reviews come from commercially successful sites as large as IGN. Don't these guys review games with fore thought?
I can understand not liking a game because it's not your thing, but wouldn't you review a game and consider it's potential with the target audience or future potential? You wouldn't review a game like Little Big Planet and say 'users can make and download other levels, but the other levels I downloaded were all shit, therefore this feature is shit and adds nothing' but you'd look at the tools available and recognise the potential there, even if you played first person shooters and had no inclination to play or create your own level designs or others, you'd have to be able to recognise what is there and grade accordingly.
Even then, at least make mention in your review that the score maybe higher or lower depending on personal tastes.
That review is just awful. It's not even well written. I'm usually one to take reviews with a grain of salt considering personal opinion but that seriously, wtf was that?
I can understand not liking a game because it's not your thing, but wouldn't you review a game and consider it's potential with the target audience or future potential? You wouldn't review a game like Little Big Planet and say 'users can make and download other levels, but the other levels I downloaded were all shit, therefore this feature is shit and adds nothing' but you'd look at the tools available and recognise the potential there, even if you played first person shooters and had no inclination to play or create your own level designs or others, you'd have to be able to recognise what is there and grade accordingly.
Even then, at least make mention in your review that the score maybe higher or lower depending on personal tastes.
That review is just awful. It's not even well written. I'm usually one to take reviews with a grain of salt considering personal opinion but that seriously, wtf was that?
Dash Kappei
Not actually that important
Tim the Wiz said:
Not going that far since I do not use that forum's function, ever, but really guys
WHAT THE FUCK?! :O
This is one case where I feel the devs/publisher are definitely entiled to pull every ad pages from the website.
i'd say i'm fairly qualified to review games, but i'm not qualified to review sports games because my frame of reference for sports games is mostly wayne gretzky'98 and NFL blitz on n64. people would read my review and think "wtf, this guy hasn't played sports games in like 10 years" and my review would be pretty useless to anybody who actually likes and plays sports games... which would be most people who read the review.Slavik81 said:
DING DING FUCKING DING.Opiate said:
People defending this review because the reviewer "didn't like the game" are idiots, a review should give potential buyers an insight on what the game achieves, not one where it is berated because it isn't a genre they enjoy.
I'll say this, AGAIN for the people who are clearly not reading and thus defending Avi Burk on false pretences: If Avi adequately demonstrated that he actually played the game properly, learned the systems, played at least a season before writing his review, and gave a critique of what FM is all about, and then slammed it, I wouldn't have a problem, that did not happen.
It is clear that Avi did NOT play for more than an hour, it is clear that no effort was made to play the game properly, and as such the "review" was short, uninformative, and quite wrong really. This isn't elitism, this is a reaction to one of the worst reviews processes I have ever seen in my life.
IGN's explanation of their own ratings and reviews explains what a pretty good review should be. you only need to compare it to their own guidelines to see how much of a failure this review is. i've already quoted two major contradictions, but those aren't the only two.
those defending this IGN review happen to be fighting against IGN's review guidelines.
dfyb said:
those defending this IGN review happen to be fighting against IGN's review guidelines.
Shake Appeal
Member
I think the thing that annoys (and amuses) me most is people referring to the Championship/Football Manager series as 'niche'. Fuck your Americentrism, just this once. This game, which is the most accurate and comprehensive simulator of what is by far the world's most popular sport, is a mass market title in the UK and across Europe.
Randy Lanzarote
Member
Maybe its a joke, the reviewers name is Burk after all
just looking at the scores... i always thought it was common sense to go to a review from a country where the sport is played alot for a more accurate review of a sports game... i know i have left that wide open for debate but generally speaking i found americans did not generally review football/soccer games as well as say, the british
and i would look at american mags for insight into basketball games
and so on
and i would look at american mags for insight into basketball games
and so on
norinrad21
Banned
wenis said:
:lol :lol :lol
norinrad21
Banned
Its fairly simple the guy should have just talked to his manager about not having a clue and that someone else with a bit of knowledge should have reviewed the game.
IGN :lol :lol :lol
IGN :lol :lol :lol
- Status