Support NeoGAF

[JohnnySasaki86]

Didn't Resident Evil 6 get a pretty low score on IGN?

 

[equippedwithtowel]

Didn't Resident Evil 6 get a pretty low score on IGN?

Only if you listen to Mario Kart fans...



(7.9)

 

[Rebel Leader]

Nintendogs. 40.

worth every number

 

[EightBitNate]

The problem is reviewers have a warped scale. Rarely do games get 1-6 on IGN.

 

[Zaventem]

Well a lot of those games are good.

.

 

[BlazinAm]

A 8.5 is right in the middle, thus average, on the 7-10 review scale.

Consumers breed that notion as well. Also I remember pretty high profile reviews at IGN saying on games scoop podcast that they felt when they scored a game a 6-7 range they meant that the game was good it just wasn't great.

 

[Delusibeta]

Didn't Resident Evil 6 get a pretty low score on IGN?

That was just after Doritogate, and everyone wanted to look tough. It just happened that there was an average game that released to absolutely slaughter.

 

[Zaventem]

Nintendogs. 40.

Also i'll like to say.Every idiot in here catching feeling when a casual game gets a good score.You'll see it every couple of months with imagine babies(z?) and god hand.True IGNs perception on godhand has changed for the better but that doesn't mean the score given to the game you see it put up against means it they're necessarily wrong.IMO i think nintenddogs deserves that score regardless of what i think of famitsu.

 

[G17]

Chris Watters from Gamespot just gave Judgement a 7.5/10, took his time with the review and gave it the score it deserves. (when compared to Gears 3) Definitely one of the better reviewers out there.

How IGN gave that game a 9.2 I will never know.

 

[GetemMa]

You are using two different publications to find one high score between them. Your argument is pretty weak.

I have way more respect for Game Informer than I do for outfits like Polygon and Gamespot. However, IGN are serial overraters. Even Destructoid is a little too manic for me. They either love it or hate it.

Sure, sometimes GI gives scores that I think are way too high, like Dead Space 9.75, and the inexplicable 8.75 for Resident Evil 6 (both of which are by the same reviewer). AC3 also got a score that is way too high and I like AC as a series.

But, they do find people to review games that are fans of that genre and I think that is the best way to serve your readers. It would make absolutely no sense to get someone who hates JRPGs to review Xenoblade. It would make no sense to get someone who hates sports games to review FIFA.

I can find multiple examples where GI has given major AAA multiplatform releases scores that are sub 8.5. Metal Gear Rising got a 7.75

On Metacritic their average is only .5 pts higher than the other critic average.

 

[G17]

I was not arguing any such point, when did I ever say Gamespot is any better? Just pointing out that I find some reviewers in every publication consistent. In this case Chris Watters. He's shown that every big site isn't somehow "bought out" in my opinion. I agree with him for almost every review. It's more about the reviewer than the site most of the time.

For my reviews I don't particularly read any one site or magazine but a group of people from various sites and publications that I trust for reviews.

 

[lucius]

Could have sworn GI gave Deus Ex:HR like a 8.25 and the review kind of read like it was even worse. That game is ace, and Metacritics average of 64% for Alpha Protocol is way off considering the other games that make it to 7.5 and higher, at least it gets some love on here.

 

[Cymbal Head]

I'm going to pop in and snipe without reading the whole thread:

The 1-10 scale sucks as a metric for reviewing entertainment products. It sucks even more when you start adding decimals into the score. Still worse is normalizing everything to a 1-100 scale (I'm looking at you, Metacritic).

If game reviewers need to give numeric (or pseudo-numeric) scores, a 1-4 star scale makes the most sense: 4 = must play; 3 = flawed but still worth your time; 2 = for fans of the genre/series/style only; 1 = avoid. Or, as Daily Radar used to put it: direct hit, hit, miss, bomb.

 

[archnemesis]

Consumers breed that notion as well.

Indeed. In fact, rabid consumers are probably worse than the publishers.

 

[Orayn]

That was just after Doritogate, and everyone wanted to look tough. It just happened that there was an average game that released to absolutely slaughter.

Luckily, that sense of boldness seems to be subsiding and game journos will once again give bad AAA games good scores with a clean conscience and a fat wallet.

 

[moffattron9000]

What do you think is going to happen when a lot of people lost it when Uncharted 3 had a metacritic score of 92

 

[Ravensmash]

Luckily, that sense of boldness seems to be subsiding and game journos will once again give bad AAA games good scores with a clean conscience and a fat wallet.

Like Colonial Marines? Yeah, they all loved that

Only reason I mention that game is because I recall it having a fairly large advertising campaign.

What do you think is going to happen when a lot of people lost it when Uncharted 3 had a metacritic score of 92

And this is the problem as well, how can the press progress when their readers get worked up over the difference between an 8 or a 9 in a review while not bothering to read the text.

 

[miksar]

I don't know who is more to blame, reviewers or readers (see the aftermath of Twilight Princess being rated 8.8 by GameSpot).

 

[DaBuddaDa]

I don't know who is more to blame, reviewers or readers (see the aftermath of Twilight Princess being rated 8.8 by GameSpot).

Well, if the publications want to serve their readers, and their readers want nothing but purchase justification, then it's a win win!


IGN: "THE HUGE AAA GAME YOU'RE FROTHING AT THE MOUTH FOR IS AWESOME 11/10!!!"

Readers: "JIZZ EVERYWHERE YEAHHHHHHHHH!"