58 replies to this topic

[Klobb]

Dude, no.

Gamespot hates Nintendo.

IGN is just ignorant.

 

There's a difference.

Edited by Jävla Klubba, 20 October 2013 - 09:51 PM.

[Mignaga]

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.

They're assigned by another person, and as such, they literally mean nothing to a person other than the one who assigned the score. This is because everyone is different, and a game that one person will like, I could potentially hate. It's all about perspective, and a number based on an individuals enjoyment of something will change with a new perspective.

 

Also, yeah, scores don't matter except to complete idiots who don't actually care about anything outside of a number at the end of a webpage. They don't get to decided what is actually important just because they don't know what they're doing.

 

Yes, that is true, but if you actually read the content of the review, won't that come through? You have to read the review to actually understand the review, you can't just look at a number and understand why a game is either bad or good.

[Mitch]

So the 1 random reviewer didnt like Sonic....... But lets not pretend like its some wild conspiracy that the untarnished name of the almighty Sonic the Hedgehog has never released a bad game before..... Its about a 50/50 hit or miss whether he'll be in a good game

 

 

The following is a small list of examples of IGN's disgusting bias and hatred towards Nintendo:

 

WW- 9.8

Batman- 9.5

Rayman- 9.5

Mass Effect- 9.5

Blops2- 9.3 

Splintercell- 9.2

2K13- 9.1

NSMBU- 9.1

N4SMWU: 9

Scribblenauts UM: 9.1

Pikmin- 8.8

MH3U- 8.8

NintendoLand- 8.7

 

 

 

 

 

Need I remind you of Audrey Drake and her 9.6 spree???? She was an absolute peach but she was even more favorably bias towards Ninty games than that Colin "The Pride of Long Island" Moriarty towards Sony.

 

 

 

 

 

Just because its a Wii U exclusive doesnt mean it should automatically get a 10/10..... 

[Socalmuscle]

They're assigned by another person, and as such, they literally mean nothing to a person other than the one who assigned the score. This is because everyone is different, and a game that one person will like, I could potentially hate. It's all about perspective, and a number based on an individuals enjoyment of something will change with a new perspective.

Also, yeah, scores don't matter except to complete idiots who don't actually care about anything outside of a number at the end of a webpage. They don't get to decided what is actually important just because they don't know what they're doing.

Yes, that is true, but if you actually read the content of the review, won't that come through? You have to read the review to actually understand the review, you can't just look at a number and understand why a game is either bad or good.

Your argument is against any review system used anywhere on anything.

"someone else reviewed it, not me, so it doesn't matter."

the score . It is an average of a number of scores on a set scale. A score being given by another human being other than yourself doesn't make it arbitrary. but the unreasonable nature of it does. you are actually supporting the OP with that statement.

The purpose of a review is for someone who is thinking about buying something to get an "expert opinion" from someone who has thoroughly tested the product.

You see the score and see that it is bad enough. For the majority of the public, that is enough to discourage sales. It happens in cars, games, computers, etc.

It affects the economy of scale in sales, thus affecting actual monetary transactions.

that's why reviews are important and why it's ok to be upset when they get it wrong.

So the 1 random reviewer didnt like Sonic....... But lets not pretend like its some wild conspiracy that the untarnished name of the almighty Sonic the Hedgehog has never released a bad game before..... Its about a 50/50 hit or miss whether he'll be in a good game
 
 
The following is a small list of examples of IGN's disgusting bias and hatred towards Nintendo:
 
WW- 9.8
Batman- 9.5
Rayman- 9.5
Mass Effect- 9.5
Blops2- 9.3 
Splintercell- 9.2
2K13- 9.1
NSMBU- 9.1
N4SMWU: 9
Scribblenauts UM: 9.1
Pikmin- 8.8
MH3U- 8.8
NintendoLand- 8.7
 
 
 
 
 
Need I remind you of Audrey Drake and her 9.6 spree???? She was an absolute peach but she was even more favorably bias towards Ninty games than that Colin "The Pride of Long Island" Moriarty towards Sony.
 
 
 
 
 
Just because its a Wii U exclusive doesnt mean it should automatically get a 10/10.....

I have noticed her particularly "picking up the slack" with Nintendo reviews. she seems to be reasonable.

The skinny PS3 loving guy-I don't remember his name-but he is hilarious with his digs at nintendo every chance he gets.

Edited by Socalmuscle, 20 October 2013 - 10:09 PM.

[DANT3]

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.

Assigning a number to a game as a "review" means absolutely nothing. Everybody -- and I mean everybody -- will let personal opinion and bias skew an already distorted and idiotic system even further; the fact that people rely on hours worth of content to be summed up in a number out of ten is beyond my comprehension. I'm the sort of person who will praise Asura's Wrath without fail because I loved it as a whole, despite the game having glaring issues throughout it. I can say the game is as good as I want, and people might just believe my opinion, but in doing that sort of thing I've let my own thoughts on the game interfere with anything that could be deemed professional.

 

The fundamental problem with giving games a score is that they're an interactive medium. Sitting down and watching a movie, and then judging it based on the story, scene direction, characters, etc is completely different when the elements of gameplay and mechanics get introduced. The instant somebody can add their own flair and skill to a game is the very instant you lose the ability to compliment what makes games so great... If you take somebody who's never played a hack 'n' slash and drop them into Metal Gear Rising, chances are they'll have very negative feelings about aspects of combat in that game. At the same time, if you take somebody who plays games that demand incredible reflexes and the ability to instantly grasp mechanics and techniques, they'll praise it without end.

 

I know I do.

 

tldr; numbers out of ten mean damn-near nothing because people let their lone opinion on gameplay be a huge defining factor of the review.

[Mignaga]

Your argument is against any review system used anywhere on anything.

"someone else reviewed it, not me, so it doesn't matter."

the score . It is an average of a number of scores on a set scale. A score being given by another human being other than yourself doesn't make it arbitrary. but the unreasonable nature of it does. you are actually supporting the OP with that statement.

The purpose of a review is for someone who is thinking about buying something to get an "expert opinion" from someone who has thoroughly tested the product.

You see the score and see that it is bad enough. For the majority of the public, that is enough to discourage sales. It happens in cars, games, computers, etc.

It affects the economy of scale in sales, thus affecting actual monetary transactions.

that's why reviews are important and why it's ok to be upset when they get it wrong.

When did I say reviews were unimportant? 

Reviews are important. Stupid numbers aren't. 

 

Also, when did I say that because another person reviewed it, it is automatically invalid? I stated a number is irrelevant, however someone clearly stating the issues of a game isn't. That's what a review is, a critique of the bad and the good of something, not a number that's meant to represent these things based upon another person's personal preference.

[Mitch]

 

 

tldr; numbers out of ten mean damn-near nothing because people let their lone opinion on gameplay be a huge defining factor of the review.

 

Amen brother!!!

 

Its time we spread this gospel to the all the nations of the world

 

https://www.change.o...scale-out-of-11

[DANT3]

Amen brother!!!

 

Its time we spread this gospel to the all the nations of the world

 

https://www.change.o...scale-out-of-11

I enjoyed this a lot more than I should have.

[Wolfy]

Sonic: Lost World is rainbow.

 

I liked ZombiU, but it's rainbow.

 

Halo 4 is horsing fantastic, Battlefield and CoD do exactly what they're supposed to do just fine, they are good games.

[storabajskorven]

 

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.

 

Halo is a great game though (but so is ZombiU).

[Auzzie Wingman]

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?

 

1. Reviews will always be biased. Do not think otherwise.

2. Games like Halo, CoD and Battlefield accommodate to the tastes of those seeking online multiplayer experiences, the leading experience type in video games of the current age. This isn't 10 years ago, when less than 10% console games had shocking internet experiences. They get high reviews because they are still leaders in the most prevalent genre of gaming in the modern world.

3. ZombiU deserved a low score after trying too hard to be a Wii U game and not trying hard enough to be a good zombie game. 

4. IGN doesn't hate Nintendo. IGN just has reviewers that like what they see on other consoles compared to what they see on Nintendo's. Is it bias? Not in the sense you are seeking. Is it unfair? It isn't actually. Is it hate towards Nintendo? No, the only thing it is to Nintendo is bad luck.

5. You should know better than to use online scores as a point of discussion or argument. All they've ever done to the internet is added to the headache.

6. My current thoughts? I'm hungry, the back massage was really good and Playstation Plus is cool.

 

 

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.

 

1. I don't know if you are too young to be making comments about 5 year old gamers, or too old to be making spelling mistakes. Choose.

2. 5 year olds don't play Call of Duty or Halo, or at the very least they shouldn't be. Most, if not all, are playing Facebook games, overpriced smartphone games like Angry Birds, or party type games on actual consoles (which is a shame because they should really be playing Wonder Boy instead). Use a more realistic age, like 12-15.

3. Call of Duty and Halo are superior to Goldeneye 007 no matter how you put it. Whether you mean the old school N64 version in which most gamers would either turn a nose up to because of the now intolerable graphics, the other gamers only willing to play because of a nostalgia trip which for most only lasts a few games, OR, the newer version that was orignally a Wii exclusive that had terrible multiplayer levels and an inferior sense of a Call of Duty clone, that had the dreariest levelling system ever implemented in a First Person Shooter.

4. Post another video on Youtube. Please.

[3Dude]

Im leaning more towards general incompetence than purposeful maliciousness.

A lot of these games feature new, or different mechanics, and actually demand the skill to use them, which places them outside the narrow field of experience reviewers have where they can pick something up and play it correctly.

The 'problem' with these nintendo system games, is they are made for gamers, and not reviewers. And make no mistake about it, the large glut of 'AAA' games are specifically made for reviewers, or more specifically, to be easily digested and experienced rapidly and without effort.

[Gamejunkie]

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.

Either you're just naive or you just don't bother checking which editors wrote those articles. The previews and the review were written by different editors. Ad you obviously don't realise these are all personal opinions including reviews and as they were written by different editors its quite conceivable that they would differ in their opinions. Not to mention previews were probably based on unfinished builds as opposed to the final product.

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?

That is clearly just ridiculous. By your skewed logic all the other media outlets that gave it a low score also hate Nintendo which I doubt is the case.

[Socalmuscle]

Sonic: Lost World is carp.

 

I liked ZombiU, but it's carp.

 

Halo 4 is horsing fantastic, Battlefield and CoD do exactly what they're supposed to do just fine, they are good games.

 

You've played it?

[ZombiCarolyn]

Is the sky blue?

Is the grass green? 

[kirbylover]

1. Reviews will always be biased. Do not think otherwise.

2. Games like Halo, CoD and Battlefield accommodate to the tastes of those seeking online multiplayer experiences, the leading experience type in video games of the current age. This isn't 10 years ago, when less than 10% console games had shocking internet experiences. They get high reviews because they are still leaders in the most prevalent genre of gaming in the modern world.

3. ZombiU deserved a low score after trying too hard to be a Wii U game and not trying hard enough to be a good zombie game. 

4. IGN doesn't hate Nintendo. IGN just has reviewers that like what they see on other consoles compared to what they see on Nintendo's. Is it bias? Not in the sense you are seeking. Is it unfair? It isn't actually. Is it hate towards Nintendo? No, the only thing it is to Nintendo is bad luck.

5. You should know better than to use online scores as a point of discussion or argument. All they've ever done to the internet is added to the headache.

6. My current thoughts? I'm hungry, the back massage was really good and Playstation Plus is cool.

 

 

 

1. I don't know if you are too young to be making comments about 5 year old gamers, or too old to be making spelling mistakes. Choose.

2. 5 year olds don't play Call of Duty or Halo, or at the very least they shouldn't be. Most, if not all, are playing Facebook games, overpriced smartphone games like Angry Birds, or party type games on actual consoles (which is a shame because they should really be playing Wonder Boy instead). Use a more realistic age, like 12-15.

3. Call of Duty and Halo are superior to Goldeneye 007 no matter how you put it. Whether you mean the old school N64 version in which most gamers would either turn a nose up to because of the now intolerable graphics, the other gamers only willing to play because of a nostalgia trip which for most only lasts a few games, OR, the newer version that was orignally a Wii exclusive that had terrible multiplayer levels and an inferior sense of a Call of Duty clone, that had the dreariest levelling system ever implemented in a First Person Shooter.

4. Post another video on Youtube. Please.

The wii version was awful!

[Dark Link]

This is why I don't read GameSpot and IGN anymore. Many of their high score reviews are paid.

 

10 is the new 8, and 5 is the new 8.

[Gamejunkie]

This is why I don't read GameSpot and IGN anymore. Many of their high score reviews are paid.
 
10 is the new 8, and 5 is the new 8.

That's a typical cynical view point. Unless you can prove that for a fact you're just making unfounded assumptions.

[tboss]

no, half of IGN's reviews are complete rainbow. 

[Kokirii]

why do people keep writing 'carp' instead of 'crap'?