Opinion: Is IGN to be Trusted with Video Game Reviews?
Well, my last personally written article was about how IGN was biased against the PS3. A big deal, but still, at least they could be trusted with unbiased reviews, right?
Well, the crap has hit the fan for IGN, seeing as they have recently released a review on the new Sonic game: Sonic and the Black Knight.
I know what you're thinking "Most Sonic games suck now anyway? I mean look at unleashed! there was barely any fun!" Well, that may be true, seeing as the game wasn't very fun (But that's a personal opinion, nothing against the company.)
The rating for this game is a 3.9. That's quite a low number for any game. And certainly a score that could tarnish the credibility of SEGA. Now, they might not want to bring back the speed of the old Sonic (And to be honest, I just have to scream WHY NOT!?) but one thing that people can commemorate them for is that they are trying to do new things with the SEGA mascot, and that's something at least.
Now, on basis of playing the game for a good hour, the story is very kiddish. Sonic falls into the Camelot ages and has to stop King Arthur from corruption. They try to make it sound good, but it's pretty much a children's story. IGN gave presentation (which is menu and story) an 8.5. I believe this is good enough, and what they say about the dialog being too campy is pretty true.
One thing I have to say about the game thought is that the graphics are some of the best I've ever seen on the Wii. They're fluent, sharp, and vivid. IGN gave this an 8.5. I personally believe a 9 is required.
The sound in the game is decent. 7.5 is fine.
But let's get down to business. The gameplay. SEGA dropped the super speed for a sword and wiimote swing capabilities. at first it sounds like a whole lot of cheese. But after playing a bit, it honestly isn't that bad of gameplay mechanics. I
GN said, and I quote "Possibly designed by monkeys." Very cruel and unusual for them to say about a game isn't it? They gave gameplay a 3. I would have given a 6.5-7, depending on how the gameplay progresses.
And the second main part is lasting appeal. It was given a 3 by IGN. Obviously, I can't refute them on this since I haven't played passed an hour (Killzone 2. What can you do?) but comments from the review state that "The primary gameplay is with sonic, and is a few hours.
But they give a fake ending, in the sense that the real twist happens after the credits and then you have to play as the other characters that are unlocked. They progress the story. The game is longer than a few hours" Strange for a game review to come out when the person reviewing the game hasn't even played it properly. So far, I believe the game deserves a 7-7.5 in total.
Now you may be saying "Okay, so fire the damn guy who reviewed it because he's biased against Sonic!" That's not entirely true. He's not biased against Sonic. He's biased against SEGA. And it's not just this guy. There's Mr. Hilary Goldstein to deal with as well. (Yeah, it's true. Mr. HILARY Goldstein. Don't worry, I laughed too.)
IGN had to give a formal apology after it was shown that they had given an unfair review to SEGA's football manager 2007 because, you guessed it, they didn't even finish playing the game.
"Okay, so what if the game actually sucks?" Well, some reviewers believe that, and some don't. The lowest mark (Other than IGN,) has been a 6. That's quite a substantial increase that IGN. The highest mark (By Nintendo Power) is an 8. Obviously this is the kind of game that gets mixed reviews.
You don't believe me, then check out other reviews.
I know that most of you have been telling me to just check out gamespot, and I do. But I've had the habit of checking out IGN for the past 4 years, so it's a hard habit to get out of. But this is the last straw. I can no longer ignore such blasphemous turmoils that IGN throws towards certain companies because they hit a poor streak for a while, but at the same time, came out with good games such as, oh I don't know, Virtua-freaking-Fighter 5.
I can't take the ridiculous subliminal guiding towards a console that has good games, but at the same time, not as good games as the console you're against. You people are like Fox News. I feel filthy just because I use to visit you're site. But no more. You're ridiculous indirect messages and D-class writing have pushed me over the edge, and led to a better place: Anywhere but here.
You're on a very, very brittle wire, IGN. And if, no, WHEN that wire snaps, you'll be in a storm of angry users, longing for blood. You have been warned IGN. Do something right for once and take notice.
More PlayStation 3 News...
it's true that other people think this, but i do not believe that IGN is biased because of the whole skate incident. That was actually legit. The main reason skate got a lower score was because the frame rate was of slightly lesser quality on the ps3. But like I said, IGN is biased towards the 360 vs the ps3, but none of their bias accusations have anything to do with incomplete reviews and flaming a company.
I totally agree with you. A few years ago IGN had okay reviewers but now... their reviews are wrote by people that know jack sh*t about video games, all their reviews are bloody crap.
Personally I don't care about Sonic, anymore still clinging to this blue hedgehog need to let go ffs, the reason Sonic games are still being made because people like YOU are still buying this crap so they are sitll making money. Face it mate Sonic died around 15 years ago.
But back to IGN, yeah IGN sucks my arse seriously I remember their review of Killzone 2 gameplay at E3 2008. Hahahahaha that moron that wrote that article got ripped so hard, god that was hilarious he must of got abused 100 times if not more XDD. He was saying the game was to bleak and gray, what was he expecting pink fluffy bunny rabbits and colourful flowers in a war?
Seriously IGN should just close down.
Sonic games aren't still being made because of people like me. I never said that i bought the game. I just checked it out. To be honest, i just noticed this thing and decided to check it out. And i decided to leave it cause it wasn't a game i wanted to play.
But that doesnt mean that a dude who's job is to finish the damn game.
But back to the subject, the reason Sonic games are still being made is because the Genesis generation passed Sonic on to the younger generation, and SEGA sold out to the kids. The kids want to play Sonic because he's blue, he's spiky, and the story is on their level, and especially since the wii as easy controls, easy to play. Sonic's gone to crap because of the kids.
What a load of tosh. How can you say a team that has dedicated ps3 reviewers are biased against the ps3!
They gave the god awful Resistance - Fall of man a 9.1 review for gods sake! At the end of the day, it comes down to the opinion of the reviewer, not IGN as a whole. Do you think the editor would say, nah, this is too pro ps3, knock it down a bit. If the reviewer think that overall a game is worth 3. whatever, so be it, chances are the game is probably rubbish, at least in their opinion.
Either way, if Resistance was such a terrible game (Which i loved, but i enjoyed r2 more) why is it that people bought it and liked it, and then went out and made the second one a success? Resistance and Sonic are two different games, with different fan bases, age groups, etc. Comparing the two are ludicrous.
As for your comments about opinion, the opinion cannot be BIASED. it's true that they can believe that some games are awful when they actually aren't. But how can a proper opinion be placed if you haven't even finished the game? It's just not right.
That sonic review REALLY turned me off IGN. It was very poorly written, and it read completely like a biased article. Granted, the game isn't that great anyway, but they took it way too far just because its not the Sonic game THEY wanted.