58 replies to this topic

[Alex Wolfers]

Today IGN gave Sonic Lost World a low score of like a 5 or something. Considering how they give games like Halo, COD, and Battlefield insanely high reviews and games like Zombi U a low score, and games like the Wii U version of Rayman a lower score then other ports I have grown to suspect IGN's reviews are either biased or bought out, or the fact they simply hate most Nintendo games. Your thoughts?

Edited by Alex Wolfers, 20 October 2013 - 02:48 PM.

[Colinx]

They didn't give Rayman a lower score then the others. 9.5 on 360 and Wii U. I think you mean't Gamespot. I think Gamespot asked Nintendo if they wanted to pay for a good review score and they said no so they give their games decent/bad reviews. IGN I don't think does, as they are smart enough to know this would mainly effect Sega. As much as I love ZombiU, I agree that 6.3 is a pretty fair score for the game considering the negatives cited. As for this game, I don't know. I thought this was going to be an 8.5-9ish game. Considering it's getting mediocre scores all around I don't think its bias. It depends when we get the game and see how accurate that review is.

Edited by Colinx, 20 October 2013 - 03:02 PM.

[Mignaga]

I love how it's the number at the end of the article that people complain about, and not the actual what the review says.

[Zinix]

Is the sky blue?

Is the grass green? 

Do girls have good?

 

 

Or is this another thread where Saturn stealthily tries to get us to argue for days and then abruptly vanishes from the face of the earth for like another two weeks? 

[LinkKennedy]

Halo, Cod, BF are better games than ZombiU, just because they keep using their great gameplay over and over doesn't make em bad games imo. Also I haven't played Sonic and I can't imagine it being a 5 since it looks like a solid 8 but many outside of ign are saying its rainbow so idk anymore.

[Nollog]

Today IGN gave Sonic Lost World a low score of like a 5 or something. Considering how they give games like Halo, COD, and Battlefield insanely high reviews and games like Zombi U a low score, and games like the Wii U version of Rayman a lower score then other ports I have grown to suspect IGN's reviews are either biased or bought out, or the fact they simply hate most Nintendo games. Your thoughts?

Yeah, they're like you.

Wii U has awkward controls to IGN.

[Kokirii]

No question that Gamespot hates Nintendo.  They haven't given anything Nintendo released more than an 8 in the last like 2 years.  It is almost laughable, actually, because that's not an exaggeration.  If you look at their score history, they give 8 after 8 after 8 even to a bunch of games with significantly better meta scores.  I mean, seriously...they even gave Pokemon X/Y an 8.  And, of course, Skyward Sword (metacritic 93) got a 7.  

 

Of course that could all just be a coincidence and those reviewers really just thought the games deserved those scores.  If so, it's an annoying coincidence.  But anyway...IGN seems pretty fair.  They've given a number of recent Nintendo games very good reviews so their low score of Sonic doesn't really seem odd to me, especially since so many other places have given similar scores.  The same would go for ZombiU, which got low scores from a lot of places.

Edited by kokirii, 20 October 2013 - 05:12 PM.

[kirbylover]

just because they keep using their great gameplay over and over 

They never had good gameplay in the first place.

[Colinx]

They never had good gameplay in the first place.

Hope you're not serious.

[kirbylover]

Today IGN gave Sonic Lost World a low score of like a 5 or something. Considering how they give games like Halo, COD, and Battlefield insanely high reviews and games like Zombi U a low score, and games like the Wii U version of Rayman a lower score then other ports I have grown to suspect IGN's reviews are either biased or bought out, or the fact they simply hate most Nintendo games. Your thoughts?

By the way none of the game you mentioned are made by nintendo.

Hope you're not serious.

Yes I am. I'm a mordern FPS hater so... why do little 5 year olds play crap like cod and halo when they could could be playing golden eye 007.

No question that Gamespot hates Nintendo.  They haven't given anything Nintendo released more than an 8 in the last like 2 years.  It is almost laughable, actually, because that's not an exaggeration.  If you look at their score history, they give 8 after 8 after 8 even to a bunch of games with significantly better meta scores.  I mean, seriously...they even gave Pokemon X/Y an 8.  And, of course, Skyward Sword (metacritic 93) got a 7.  

 

Of course that could all just be a coincidence and those reviewers really just thought the games deserved those scores.  If so, it's an annoying coincidence.  But anyway...IGN seems pretty fair.  They've given a number of recent Nintendo games very good reviews so their low score of Sonic doesn't really seem odd to me, especially since so many other places have given similar scores.  The same would go for ZombiU, which got low scores from a lot of places.

This always happens (looks at gamespot's review of banjo kazooie N&B)IT'S HIGHER THEN POKEMON X & Y! YOU SUCK GAMESPOT!http://www.gamespot....nuts-and-bolts/

AND LEGEND OF ZELDA : SKYWARD SWORD!

Edited by kirbylover, 21 October 2013 - 01:49 PM.

[Fiery]

No, Nintendo doesn't pay them enough for a high score.

[Colinx]

Have you ever played Call of Duty, Halo or Battlefield? There is really nothing wrong with it rather then you just being upset with them being mainstream. Every Call of Duty has been the best online experience I could imagine in a video game on consoles. The campaigns in Call of Duty now a days are quite lame, but COD4, WaW and MW2 had great campaigns. Some people seem to forget about COD4, but it truly is one of the best video games this generation and raised the bar for online gaming. As for Halo and Battlefield, I really don't have much experience with either titles however I do know that Halo 4 was a fantastic game and Battlefield isn't half bad either.

[Mignaga]

Yes I am. I'm a mordern FPS hater so... why do little 5 year olds play crap like cod and halo when they could could be playing golden eye 007.

Probably because Golden Eye is a game that has aged like piss, and for some reason is held up on a really high pedestal.

Edited by Mignaga, 20 October 2013 - 06:46 PM.

[Nollog]

They never had good gameplay in the first place.

That's correct, to have good gameplay you'd have to have gameplay.
Online deathmatches are beyond the control of the game designers, so can't be credited to the game.

[GAMER1984]

people need to go with their own thoughts about a game. The crazy thing about IGN is their preview for sonic game a couple weeks ago was nothing but praise. did the game change that much in a couple weeks? im sure the version they previewed was near final version. If you see a game that looks interesting and wants to plat go buy it and play it. dont let IGN tell you different.

[Bill Cipher]

-Claims IGN Hates Nintendo

-Brings up Non Nintendo games, while ignoring their praise of Skyward Sword, Paper Mario Sticker Star, etc, while forgetting their obvious derp moments with Xenoblade(IT'S A 9/10 BECAUSE IT'S NOT A 360 GAME VISUALLY), Wonderful 101(It gets a 7/10 because I thought the controls were bad even though gameplay footage showed I suck), etc.

-Forgets that every Review site EVER has had moments where they've been accused of hating on Nintendo and thinks this is some sort of big thing when a review is a person's opinion.

 

 

Face it, a reviewers opinion is subjective and not objective. While IGN has had some big moments that were full of DERP with Nintendo(Xenoblade/W101), they also have shown at times an example of UNDERSTANDING a game on a Nintendo system and giving a review that fits those interested in it(Etrian Odyssey IV, Pushmo,etc). Reviews are based on the reviewers opinion of the item in question. This is a truth in reviews of ALL MEDIUMS, be it film, music, literature, games, etc.

 

  Labeling them as haters with ZombiU as "OMG THEY HATEZ NINTENDO" is completely overselling ZombiU's appeal. Yes, it may be a fun game, but it was a true survival horror game. That's a very, very small niche today, and from what I've heard the game itself is VERY hit or miss. This is like me complaining about the Game Informer review of Etrian Odyssey. They put a general gamer on a genre that is niche and they got a mixed review because SHOCKER, DIFFERENT GAMES APPEAL TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE. 

Edited by N Harmonius, 20 October 2013 - 07:54 PM.

[Tom]

why do little 5 year olds play crap like cod and halo when they could could be playing golden eye 007.

 

Were you even a twinkle in your father's eye when that game came out?

[Socalmuscle]

I love how it's the number at the end of the article that people complain about, and not the actual what the review says.

actully, if you read the ign review of lw, you will be shocked out how utterly stupid the "logic" is.

it's not just the low scores that are lame it's the actual review content.

play w101, then read their review.

you'll understand then.

[Mignaga]

actully, if you read the ign review of lw, you will be shocked out how utterly stupid the "logic" is.

it's not just the low scores that are lame it's the actual review content.

play w101, then read their review.

you'll understand then.

I have. They didn't like the controls. I didn't mind them. The score is still irrelevant regardless of whether or not they liked the controls or not, because no matter what, it is a completely arbitrary number, and even then, that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about complaining that a game got a poor score, not what the actual content of the review says.

[Socalmuscle]

I have. They didn't like the controls. I didn't mind them. The score is still irrelevant regardless of whether or not they liked the controls or not, because no matter what, it is a completely arbitrary number, and even then, that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about complaining that a game got a poor score, not what the actual content of the review says.

The scores arent' actually arbitrary. They rate a number of criteria on a numerical scale and average it out.

So that is the point of the thread. And it is a valid point.

You are the one who said that scores don't matter, but they do, because it seems "official" to many who don't know better and can discourage game sales.

The low scores in some cases are obviously a result of either bias or incompetence. and the articles reflect that.

Edited by Socalmuscle, 20 October 2013 - 09:49 PM.