Support NeoGAF

[Figboy79]

Not surprising since this is IGN, but it's incredibly disappointing because, unfortunately, many, many gamers take IGNs word as the God's Truth.

As soon as a new game hits, a handful of my co-workers rush to IGN to see what the score is. If it's low, they're like, "Aww, that's too bad. I guess I'll pass on this game."

No matter how many times I point out that reviews this generation are shit, because the scoring system is no longer about objective observation and evaluation, but about what side of the "console war" you rest on, and reviewers being put on reviews for games that they just aren't a fan of the genre (it'd be like putting me to review Madden; I hate sports in general, let alone video games about sports. How worthless would my review be to sports fans? Here's a hint: pretty fricking worthless).

I haven't read a review for actual purchasing decisions since the PS2 era. The best reviewer of a game for me is myself. If I can't play the game beforehand, but if I'm really interested in the theme/genre of the game, I'll sometimes bite the bullet and buy it. But I try my hardest to play the game for myself. Like Alice: Madness Returns. I had heard just poor things about the game, but rented it from Game Fly, really, really enjoyed it, and bought it.

It's a shame that too many gamers out there rely on other people's opinions to help them decide what they purchase, then quite a few of them get up on their soap boxes and complain about the lack of quality gaming out there. In truth, there has been an amazing amount of quality games this generation, if you bother to form your own opinions. Reviewers are individuals as well, despite it being their job to be objective and informative. This scenario is totally different, however, as the guy just shows no integrity after being called out. I'm so glad I stopped going to IGN years and years ago, for any type of gaming "news." I still can't convince my co-workers to do the same, though...

 

[Screenboy]

Can we ban IGN now please?

 

[Diablos]

IGN sucks. It's a shame 1up had to become a part of their 'family'.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Well, I'm disappointed that it turned out that the most likely answer is that the IGN guy did something shifty, since it's sort of the predictable outcome at the end of the day. Ah well, I expect we're going to get a lot of this kind of silliness up until Christmas so I say sit back and enjoy the ride.

 

[Omegasquash]

As soon as a new game hits, a handful of my co-workers rush to IGN to see what the score is. If it's low, they're like, "Aww, that's too bad. I guess I'll pass on this game."

I'm tellin' ya man, reviews for the masses serve a purpose, but not to everyone. A community based site with a community based recommendation system would be far more useful. Well to me and some of my pals anyway.

 

[diffusionx]

It's a shame that too many gamers out there rely on other people's opinions to help them decide what they purchase, then quite a few of them get up on their soap boxes and complain about the lack of quality gaming out there. In truth, there has been an amazing amount of quality games this generation, if you bother to form your own opinions. Reviewers are individuals as well, despite it being their job to be objective and informative. This scenario is totally different, however, as the guy just shows no integrity after being called out. I'm so glad I stopped going to IGN years and years ago, for any type of gaming "news." I still can't convince my co-workers to do the same, though...

I don't know what you expect. Do those people keep up on game news every day? Do they post on game sites like you do? Are they as passionate about games as you are?

Answer to all those questions is probably "no." That's why they rely on reviews. They are human and have other interests and just want to enjoy a popular game for a bit. I don't read game reviews but I do read movie and music reviews to decide what to consume. Why? Because I don't have the time or energy to go hunting through the endless piles of new stuff to find what is aligned to my taste. Because I am not so knowledgeable and up-to-date that I can intuitively grasp what I would enjoy. It's life, man.

To them, you just sound like a nerd/asshole/snob.

 

[Kazerei]

Well, I've been arguing against this IGN guy the whole thread but this is a really very silly point. Reviewers need to decide if a game is worth the asking price for CONSUMERS. You know, the people for whom they write the review? Of course if he feels like he wouldn't pay the asking price for the amount of content in the game he's going to let people know because he doesn't have to pay for it but other people do.

But if he only played through casual mode before writing the review, then it would seem the amount of content in the game is not accurately reflected in his review.

 

[Hex]

IGN: We make Kotaku look good.

 

[Captain_Spanky]

the scoring system is no longer about objective observation and evaluation,

Because it's impossible and the last thing a review should do is pretend to be objective and absolute in any way.

 

[Aselith]

But if he only played through casual mode before writing the review, then it would seem the amount of content in the game is not accurately reflected in his review.

No doubt. Ding him for the right thing though which is poorly reviewing the game. Playing it free is not the problem.

 

[MrPliskin]

I've figured it out. He doesn't mention the cutscenes because it features a noteworthy journalist from an opposing outlet.

Mr Garnett Lee.

 

[TheExodu5]

I find it pretty hilarious and ironic that he complains about the length of the game, yet rushes through it.

 

[nel e nel]

I've figured it out. He doesn't mention the cutscenes because it features a noteworthy journalist from an opposing outlet.

Mr Garnett Lee.

I like Garnett too, but I would be hesitant to call someone who had one of the most violent fascist tirades against people not playing Diablo the way he thinks it should be played a noteworthy 'journalist'.

People seem to keep forgetting that reviews are opinions. Opinions on consumer products. Even when folks try and do a noteworthy editorial, it's still an opinion.

Until they start cracking open internal memos incriminating Vince Zampella and Jason West in breach of contract, the majority of game 'journalists' are nothing more than consumer reporters.

 

[MrPliskin]

I like Garnett too, but I would be hesitant to call someone who had one of the most violent fascist tirades against people not playing Diablo the way he thinks it should be played a noteworthy 'journalist'.

People seem to keep forgetting that reviews are opinions. Opinions on consumer products. Even when folks try and do a noteworthy editorial, it's still an opinion.

Until they start cracking open internal memos incriminating Vince Zampella and Jason West in breach of contract, the majority of game 'journalists' are nothing more than consumer reporters.

Thisisneogaf.jpg

The post was a joke.

 

[Glix]

And this is why it is a FUCKING CRIME that people's salaries/bonuses/jobs depend on METACRITIC SCORES.

Daemon and every other "journo" should be fucking ashamed of themselves.

 

[gutter_trash]

these are not journalists, stop calling them that

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

Can we ban IGN now please?

You mean the site that elicits some of the most attention and biggest threads????

 

[nel e nel]

Thisisneogaf.jpg

The post was a joke.

Twice in 2 days for me. Is this whole site a joke?

 

[Jinfash]

I missed most of the action. Did the story change after his blog post? It was kind of confusing since I haven't played the game.

 

[Zane]

Exactly, why would they review the game on the merits of being free to them. Don't we rail against that? I want them to review from the context of my value, not theirs, because their value would be the game being free.

Reviews aren't purchase recommendations. They are evaluations of a game's qualities, good and bad. Reviews can make the purchasing decision easier, sure, but it's up to the consumer to read the review and then decide for themselves. Only you have an idea of what your money is worth to you. There's no way I can say something like "this game is absolutely worth your $60." Because how the hell can I know?

If it's a good review, then it will give you all the information you need to make that choice on your own. The price of the game never once enters my mind when I write a review. But I'm a good writer. And I can articulate the strengths and weaknesses of a game. That's way more useful to you as a consumer than some stupid "buy this game!" line.

 

[tycoonheart]

And this is why it is a FUCKING CRIME that people's salaries/bonuses/jobs depend on METACRITIC SCORES.

Daemon and every other "journo" should be fucking ashamed of themselves.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. That reviewers should somehow take that into account when they're not even feeling the game? That sounds like a game company fail more than anything else.

 

[tycoonheart]

Reviews aren't purchase recommendations. They are evaluations of a game's qualities, good and bad. Reviews can make the purchasing decision easier, sure, but it's up to the consumer to read the review and then decide for themselves. Only you have an idea of what your money is worth to you. There's no way I can say something like "this game is absolutely worth your $60." Because how the hell can I know?

If I pay 60 bucks for a game that isn't any longer than say 6 hours, I sure as hell would like to know that in the review, and I'd also make sure a game that long would never get purchased at that price point. Personally I think it makes perfect sense for a reviewer to gauge the game's "worth".

 

[Zane]

If I pay 60 bucks for a game that isn't any longer than say 6 hours, I sure as hell would like to know that in the review, and I'd also make sure a game that long would never get purchased at that price point. Personally I think it makes perfect sense for a reviewer to gauge the game's "worth".

In that case, I would note the short length of the game and -- if I felt similarly to you -- criticize it. Then you would see that, note the game's price of 60 bones, and pass on it. We already do gauge a game's worth in the process of reviewing it. But judging its monetary value? No way. I don't feel comfortable doing that.

But I also question your judging of a game based on its length. Some of my favorite games are pretty short. Portal, for example. Or the WarioWare games. Or Sin & Punishment. I could go on. The point here is that you don't want to spend $60 bucks on a short game. That's cool. But I'd have no trouble shelling out that money if it was a great game. Do you see why it's a bit hard for me to judge a game's monetary value? Because everyone ascribes value to different things.

Hell some people pass on anything without a multiplayer mode. I can't account for all these different people.

So my idea of a review is "is this game good or bad? why?" If that's not enough for you, then well... I guess I can't help you.

 

[yurinka]

Time to ban them. I think there are more reasons than other already banned sites

 

[Puppet Shadow]

Time to ban them. I think there are more reasons than other already banned sites

Agreed.

 

[Dalauz]

*read thu the whole thread and links*

I REALLY WANT A YOUTUBE VIDEO ABOUT THE DAMN CUTSCENE

I HOPE IS VLADIMIR PUTIN RIDING A DRAGON

 

[cj_iwakura]

Time to ban them. I think there are more reasons than other already banned sites

I've been an advocate of this for months.

 

[Onemic]

I still don't understand why everyone is os up in arms about this. From the IGN dudes blog he says that there is indeed no extra "scene" after beating normal. The extra scene is what you get after beating the game on hard and beating normal just gets a message of a dude saying you unlocked hard mode, which has that extra scene the dev was talking about. Unless he's lying through his teeth, there's nothing this guy really did wrong and you guys are hating on IGN simply because it's IGN.

 

[Glix]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. That reviewers should somehow take that into account when they're not even feeling the game? That sounds like a game company fail more than anything else.

HE DIDNT PLAY THE GAME AND THEN LIED ABOUT IT

I'm not sure what you're suggesting besides that whatever country you are from has a terrible elementary reading program.

 

[MrPliskin]

I still don't understand why everyone is os up in arms about this. From the IGN dudes blog he says that there is indeed no extra "scene" after beating normal. The extra scene is what you get after beating the game on hard and beating normal just gets a message of a dude saying you unlocked hard mode, which has that extra scene the dev was talking about. Unless he's lying through his teeth, there's nothing this guy really did wrong and you guys are hating on IGN simply because it's IGN.

I just beat it on normal, got a cutscenes. He has no idea what he's talking about.

 

[gatti-man]

I still don't understand why everyone is os up in arms about this. From the IGN dudes blog he says that there is indeed no extra "scene" after beating normal. The extra scene is what you get after beating the game on hard and beating normal just gets a message of a dude saying you unlocked hard mode, which has that extra scene the dev was talking about. Unless he's lying through his teeth, there's nothing this guy really did wrong and you guys are hating on IGN simply because it's IGN.

His reaction and the way things played out very strongly point to that. The thread has stepped in the direction of assuming he lied and it really seems like he did.

 

[Onemic]

I just beat it on normal, got a cutscenes. He has no idea what he's talking about.

so there is an extra level if you beat it on normal? Or is it just a cutscene saying congratulations for beating the game and you have access to hard mode?

 

[MrPliskin]

so there is an extra level if you beat it on normal? Or is it just a cutscene saying congratulations for beating the game and you have access to hard mode?

When you finish the 3rd sector, you advance to the final stage. When you beat it, you get the cutscene. If you finish on casual, you still unlock the final boss, but you don't get a cutscene.

 

[Onemic]

When you finish the 3rd sector, you advance to the final stage. When you beat it, you get the cutscene. If you finish on casual, you still unlock the final boss, but you don't get a cutscene.

So the IGN dude was right then? There is no extra level on normal, just on hard.

 

[MrPliskin]

So the IGN dude was right then? There is no extra level on normal, just on hard.

No, this is on NORMAL. Casual = easy. He played on easy.

 

[rainking187]

HE DIDNT PLAY THE GAME AND THEN LIED ABOUT IT

I'm not sure what you're suggesting besides that whatever country you are from has a terrible elementary reading program.

He did play the game. Just not on normal mode.

 

[DR3AM]

what sites are banned on gaf if i may ask

 

[ipukespiders]

what sites are banned on gaf if i may ask

www.******.com
www.********.com
www.*******.com

 

[Azure Dream]

So the IGN dude was right then? There is no extra level on normal, just on hard.

In the review, he described both the number of levels specifically, and the ending as being abrupt with no content. There is no room in his description for the sequence that clearly exists, regardless if it's an interactive sequence, or a cutscene, or what. The only explanation that fits is that he finished the game on Casual, and presumed that's how it ends on Normal (or somehow forgot that it's not), so much so that he actively complained about it. The complaint only makes sense if he played through on Casual and didn't know better.

 

[mentalfloss]

If you ban IGN, then you also have to ban posting scores from them as well.

 

[sloppyjoe_gamer]

hahaha wow...stay classy, IGN

 

[davepoobond]

well... he said "review code"

a lot of times "review code" doesnt have certain elements in the game, but the ones issuing the review code feel that it is representative enough of the game.


so, i'm not sure i want to jump the gun and accuse him of being lazy. maybe he did beat the game on casual and normal like he says. its just that the review code is different from what we buy! that happens ALL the time.

 

[HaRyu]

well... he said "review code"

a lot of times "review code" doesnt have certain elements in the game, but the ones issuing the review code feel that it is representative enough of the game.


so, i'm not sure i want to jump the gun and accuse him of being lazy. maybe he did beat the game on casual and normal like he says. its just that the review code is different from what we buy! that happens ALL the time.

We've already confirmed that it wasn't "review code". The version reviewed was the retail version.

 

[Magna_Mixalis]

If you ban IGN, then you also have to ban posting scores from them as well.

And don't forget that the IGN Title Generator would be come useless as well, and god forbid that ever comes to pass.

*no sarcasm intended* I love that thing.

 

[Kaizer]

Twice in 2 days for me. Is this whole site a joke?

Avatar Quote.

 

[freddy]

www.******.com
www.********.com
www.*******.com

You forgot www.****yourmomma****every****sundaymorning.com

 

[J-Rzez]

This goes to show how media outlets are really. I said before, these sites are an advertising tool, and more "business-like" than people really think (advertising monies + clicks > professionalism/honesty). Unfortunately, there has been SO MANY BAD situations from these joke sites that the few and honest reviewers get coupled into "lol journalists" as well. This environment needs a massive overhaul already. Look how many shady reviews like this there have been this gen especially. With features/modes missing or just flat out wrong, to double-standards abound. Not to mention the trolling poor-tasted articles they post for "lol i gotta see this hits".

Opinions are one thing sure, but when you have your facts completely wrong, which can impact your so-called scores, then there's major problems to be had, not just for the end users that get shafted, but the developers of the games themselves.

I'll agree with others, IGN has been shit especially this gen between the quality of it's articles, the integrity of it's personnel, to it lacking facts. I wouldn't mind a bit if they were banned from here. People say how bad Kotaku is (which is right) but IGN is no better, that's for certain.

 

[Azure Dream]

I'm hesitant on a full ban, because they do still bring in some exclusive news that we're going to find interesting regardless of the source. Maybe not a ban on news, but a ban on their fluff pieces (Top 10s, shock articles for hits) and reviews?

 

[NervousXtian]

In the review, he described both the number of levels specifically, and the ending as being abrupt with no content. There is no room in his description for the sequence that clearly exists, regardless if it's an interactive sequence, or a cutscene, or what. The only explanation that fits is that he finished the game on Casual, and presumed that's how it ends on Normal (or somehow forgot that it's not), so much so that he actively complained about it. The complaint only makes sense if he played through on Casual and didn't know better.

Like a broken record, his blogs says he played both, and it is true all you get is an extra cut scene after beating on normal and it tells you that you unlocked hard.

This is factually true. Maybe he went back and beat it after, or maybe he didn't. Maybe just maybe people are reading too much into that one line in the review.

The game is the same content basically in both casual and normal, there is no extra level that first started the shit storm. He even mentioned the stages and the "last stage" boss encounter.

Again, a cut scene doesn't change the review. He clearly didn't like the game enough to check out hard (or brutal). That's fine, and the review is fine.

Normal people can read that review and make up there own mind about the game, but for most people who aren't shump fans, they can see the basic idea of the game.

..yet, even after all these posts someone posts this:

HE DIDNT PLAY THE GAME AND THEN LIED ABOUT IT

He clearly played the game, and I can't believe even at this point someone is accusing him of not even playing it now.

 

[MrPliskin]

Like a broken record, his blogs says he played both, and it is true all you get is an extra cut scene after beating on normal and it tells you that you unlocked hard.

This is factually true. Maybe he went back and beat it after, or maybe he didn't. Maybe just maybe people are reading too much into that one line in the review.

The game is the same content basically in both casual and normal, there is no extra level that first started the shit storm. He even mentioned the stages and the "last stage" boss encounter.

Again, a cut scene doesn't change the review. He clearly didn't like the game enough to check out hard (or brutal). That's fine, and the review is fine.

Normal people can read that review and make up there own mind about the game, but for most people who aren't shump fans, they can see the basic idea of the game.

..yet, even after all these posts someone posts this:



He clearly played the game, and I can't believe even at this point someone is accusing him of not even playing it now.

Lots of spaces between sentences there...anyway, no one in this thread has contested his score, just his opinions and statements. Not only does that particular line tell of a person who blasted through the game hastily to get a review out the door, but the twitter posts further contribute to the madness. Had he beat it on both, he would have known to the contrary. The issue isn't his thoughts with regards to the game, rather, the fact that someone from the studio told him "hey, there's a cutscene if you beat it on Normal" (basically an FYI).

The guy got egg on his face, just leave it at that. There's no shame in him blasting through on casual, giving it a low score, etc. There is shame in lying (more than likely) in a public forum, and then going the extra step to call out said developer like HE did something wrong because you got caught. THAT is the problem.