IGN Reviews are unfair - Page 2

I don't think their reviews should be taken that seriously.  Ever.

What do you guys think a review of a video game is? It's just someone saying whether they liked a game or not, how much and why. It's about their experience, its not going to match perfectly with yours, but it can give you some insight if you read the actual words. If you skip to the number at the end in the hope it's going to give some validation of your own opinion and then throw your toys out of the pram when it doesn't then you're wasting your time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EddieE 

What do you guys think a review of a video game is? It's just someone saying whether they liked a game or not, how much and why. It's about their experience, its not going to match perfectly with yours, but it can give you some insight if you read the actual words. If you skip to the number at the end in the hope it's going to give some validation of your own opinion and then throw your toys out of the pram when it doesn't then you're wasting your time.

I always thought they were unprofessional journalistic panderings for page views.

Do you remember the gamespot affair? Where a guy got the boot being to over critical over a triple AAA title that demand "special attention" according to the boss. I am sure there is such directives everywhere.

Many also want to be populistic. Games that got a lot of hype based on past sucesses like Call of duty, Battlefield and now Skyrim always get inflated scores since that is what the audience want to see. That and all the advertizing money the publishers pump in :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amorgan 

Thats what i thought. That's why i go to gaming forums to get real recommendations.

Head-fi, we really need a games subforum. 

No need for a game subforum.

I’ve noticed no correlation at all between the games advertised at IGN and review scores there, not even the page size wallpaper ones. Plenty of them get lack-lustre scores and Duke Nukem Forever got absolutely slated despite advertising all over the site including the wallpaper. At the same time there certainly is a clear correlation between review scores at IGN and at every other games media outlet. You get outliers but you tend to find the sort of loose agreement across the board you would find given natural variations in taste.

I don't find Metro 2033's graphics to be realistic at all, especially given how intensive it is (most intensive game so far). It can't compare to games like Crysis or BF3 in terms of wow factors and realism. Metro 2033 looks not bad (or looks decent), but not for its demand on gfx cards.

Skyrim on the other hand is not that intensive on the system. The artwork is definitely better than Metro 2033, while it may not have as many polygons.

I hope this isn't off topic, but GamePro did a review comparison between Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3.

Although both games were rated 8.5, they said that Modern Warfare 3 was the winner.

I bought both games and played both on the PS3, and I think Battlefield 3 is 100 times better because of the graphics.

Generally when they say a game is great, I go out and buy it and have agreed with them.

I thought metro 2033 was a good game, the graphics were very good but nothing amazing, I also disagree with the gameplay review it's optional whether you go for stealth or all guns blazing.