The hate against IGN

[f-izzle]

Why do so many people hate IGN so damn much?
What have they ever done to get so hated, i never really understood it.
In my opinion, their reviews are really well presented, fast forward and there's barely any prejudice.

People on NG here will probably rage at me, since i see the most hate coming from here, just try to keep it down. So please tell me, why does ign suck?

[kiljoy96]

At 10/3/11 05:23 PM, f-izzle wrote: In my opinion, their reviews are really well presented, fast forward and there's barely any prejudice.

What.
Watch these two and tell me how unbiased they are.

[phrozonfire]

They get fucking paid off to write good reviews.

[f-izzle]

Can you tell me what's so biased about them?
I sure can't.

[f-izzle]

At 10/3/11 05:41 PM, phrozonfire wrote: They get fucking paid off to write good reviews.

...Well apart of how stupid this sounds, can you back this up with any evidence?

[The-Great-One]

Their review system is crap. It seems like any big name game will get a high score of at least 9 or higher no matter what. That's my only problem with them. Their coverage of things ain't half bad and it's not a bad place for game information.

However if you're looking for better reviews and better coverage then GameTrailers is miles ahead of IGN.

[SloppyMoe606]

At 10/3/11 05:47 PM, f-izzle wrote:

At 10/3/11 05:41 PM, phrozonfire wrote: They get fucking paid off to write good reviews.

...Well apart of how stupid this sounds, can you back this up with any evidence?

How does tihs sound stupid? A game company pays IGN a lot to give their game good reviews, a whole bunch of 10 year olds see the 10/10 score, then buy the game based on the good "review", and the company makes a shitload of money even if the game is crappy.

[kiljoy96]

At 10/3/11 05:45 PM, f-izzle wrote: Can you tell me what's so biased about them?
I sure can't.

On the MW2 one.
"It's the same gameplay you know and love"
And the Left 4 Dead 2 one gets docked for the same gameplay.

[Dr-Worm]

Let me count the ways:

1. They're terrible writers.
2. They have the maturity of twelve-year-old boys.
3. They have no sense of journalistic ethics. Even if they aren't being directly bribed, they still obviously write their previews and reviews to make the big publishers happy at the expense of actually expressing genuine opinions, to keep the exclusives rolling in.
4. They have awful taste (just look at their Top 100 games of all time list).
5. They're almost completely ignorant of the history and theory of the medium they write about.
6. They barely pay any attention to games that don't have multimillion-dollar budgets and huge marketing campaigns, and
7. Their anything-less-than-8-is-bad review system makes no sense.

Basically, they completely fail to fulfill the basic purpose of entertainment media journalism/criticism and their existence has a deleterious effect on the game industry (since they reinforce the status quo instead of pushing against it). And they're responsible for the single worst piece of gaming journalism I have ever read.

Actually, wait, this one is even worse. Apparently IGN feels that any game that doesn't play itself for you is "outdated."

Now be a good boy and go read Destructoid.

[StarvingGamer]

I don't like the way they review games. I'm not saying their opinions suck, but they either kiss a game's ass or totally bash one.

[FlaminSquirrel]

I don't hate IGN, I just don't care much for their news coverage. In fact, the only thing I really hate are IGN's top # lists, which are absolute barf. Other than that IGN's tolerable, but I find news more interesting (and MUCH quicker) on sites like Destructoid or GiantBomb.

[SweetenBoy]

At 10/3/11 07:09 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: They're by no means perfect (in fact, I consider this to be complete bullshit), but anytime someone says shit like "Dey taek BRIEBZ 4 GUD REVYOO SCOARZ!!!!", I can just feel the human race getting stupider.

I tend to agree, my pet peeve is when they review a game and someone compares it to their mw2 review. Honestly people, mw2 got a undeserved review and a better score than bfbc2. Get over it. Black ops got an 8.5 FYI.

I actually find the people who bash on IGN's reviews to be like Rebecca Black haters. Instead of wasting your life complaining, why don't you go somewhere else?

[Warforger]

They get hate because they post their opinions and the average fanboy only cares if it fits their conformist opinions and so lots of people get butthurt when they see a new opinion that's different than theirs and seek to stop people having different opinions.

[TheMajormel]

i really dont understand the hate,but i like the freelaance writers than the ign staff more.
except collin,hes alright.

[JimCoolCarl]

I find IGN america too be too family friendly for my taste.

they don't swear (though sometimes that's a positive) nor are they as funny as they think there are.

i also hate how they seem to push females into doing most of the Daily fixes, just to get views from horny children.
i get it, its a strong strategy, but that doesn't make it morally justified.

however IGN AU and UK are much more enjoyable as they at least seem aware of the hatred towards IGN and make it seem playful without pissing off the people that dislike the site.

so it depends on which IGN your looking at.

[TheMajormel]

i agree with jim,look at the comments for daily fix.
one pro i have to give to ign is some funny things,like the idiotic monster designs for skyrim from a 5 year old.

[II2none]

shadow the hedgehog 4.7

Sonic unleashed 4.5

Shadow I can understand but look at sonic unleashed review video its like they tried their best to suck at the game. I'm sorry but isn't a review this is one individual bitching about were-hog and why they're isn't just day time stages. And this is just piss poor he only points out one moment of "bad camera angles inside a building with no enemies, Who the fuck cares?

This is my first time watching an IGN review and I gotta say its gonna be the last,fail.

[explodingbunnies]

They're biased immature pricks with no journalistic talents. They just please their terrible fanbase and the big companies so they can keep views and exclusive videos and what not rolling in so they can profit.

Proof : Look at their reviews, and their Top 100 games of all time list.

[sweet21]

They have a tenancy to say nothing but positive things, then complain about the smallest thing, and that ONE negative for whatever reason lowers the score to a 7 or an 8 to something that should be a 9.
Also, most of their staff consist of the stereotype (that the internet hates) of 12 year old X-box fanboy call of duty players who shop at gamestop.

[EtchASketchClock]

At 10/3/11 08:05 PM, roderickii wrote: sonic reviews

Hahaha, Ha.

[II2none]

At 10/3/11 08:15 PM, EtchASketchClock wrote:

At 10/3/11 08:05 PM, roderickii wrote: sonic reviews

Hahaha, Ha.

point?

[Jercurpac]

At 10/3/11 05:47 PM, f-izzle wrote:

At 10/3/11 05:41 PM, phrozonfire wrote: They get fucking paid off to write good reviews.

...Well apart of how stupid this sounds, can you back this up with any evidence?

Is there irrefutable evidence? No. But there have been plenty of people who have worked on major publications and come forward claiming that major publishers won't give exclusives, advance reviews, or advertising money to magazines and websites that don't give good reviews to their triple-A titles.

Does it really sound that crazy that a publisher would pull that kind of shit and publication would comply?

[EtchASketchClock]

At 10/3/11 08:23 PM, roderickii wrote:

At 10/3/11 08:15 PM, EtchASketchClock wrote:

At 10/3/11 08:05 PM, roderickii wrote: sonic reviews

Hahaha, Ha.

point?

Scores look accurate to me.

[TheMajormel]

if I recall, IGN's matt cass (cant spell his name right) gave Godhand(awesome PS2 brawler BTW)a really bad score (i think it was a 5.0?)and he later admitted he didn't finish the game to review it properly.

[II2none]

At 10/3/11 08:40 PM, EtchASketchClock wrote:

At 10/3/11 08:23 PM, roderickii wrote:

At 10/3/11 08:15 PM, EtchASketchClock wrote:

At 10/3/11 08:05 PM, roderickii wrote: sonic reviews

Hahaha, Ha.

point?

Scores look accurate to me.

I'm sure your opinion is as credible as the IGN.

[II2none]

At 10/3/11 11:24 PM, Travis wrote:

At 10/3/11 08:48 PM, roderickii wrote:

Scores look accurate to me.

I'm sure your opinion is as credible as the IGN.

Just because you are a Sonic fanboy...

Despite that, I agree that IGN is a pile of filth. It is so awful.

no because he's bashing for no reason. And im a sonic fan not a fan boy

[The-Great-One]

At 10/3/11 11:38 PM, Travis wrote: Don't give me that bullshit, you are a Sonic Fanboy.

He could just be a basic Sonic fan. A fanboy would either hate everything past the Genesis titles or love every Sonic game. He has mixed feelings about the games. He's got a point though, to hate something without reason is wrong.

[II2none]

At 10/3/11 11:38 PM, Travis wrote:

At 10/3/11 11:26 PM, roderickii wrote:

At 10/3/11 11:24 PM, Travis wrote:

At 10/3/11 08:48 PM, roderickii wrote:

Scores look accurate to me.

I'm sure your opinion is as credible as the IGN.

Just because you are a Sonic fanboy...

Despite that, I agree that IGN is a pile of filth. It is so awful.

no because he's bashing for no reason. And im a sonic fan not a fan boy

Sonic is in your sig. Sonic is your userpage picture. You have made at least 3 Sonic art pieces for the Art portal.

Don't give me that bullshit, you are a Sonic Fanboy.

Fanboy according to the internet is a fan who thinks a medium is GOD. Just because I express my fandom doesn't make me a fan boy. To me a fan boy is someone who likes one aspect of something and hates everything else without a valid opinion as to why.

[Stretchysumo]

I'll just leave this here.

[Kanon]

At 10/4/11 12:31 AM, Stretchysumo wrote: I'll just leave this here.

A well played example.