Only IGN could live with the dignity of giving Guitar Hero DS a 9 out of 10 and somehow stick with it.

http://ds.ign.com/articles/883/883357p1.
html

You see, it's ratings like this that make me despise the numbers system in reviews.
Numbers do nothing but cause controversy, just look at Jeff Gerstmann's 8.8 review of Twilight Princess, only to find out it was pretty accurate, or his 6.0 Review of Kane & Lynch which GOT HIM FIRED!

But when you give a game that kills your DS touch screen more so then Elite Beat Agents or Metroid Prime Hunters a very good score, you're obviously counting the money that was given to you as a factor in this review.

When I plan to reviews, I will use three things as a guide to how a game is good.
Buy it, rent it, or forget it. It should only be that simple.

I just wish that everyone would stop submitting to the will of hype and be their own mind.

" Deal with the handcramps "?? With something like that would get a highscore?

Numbers in reviews are ridiculous

Because it's so cool to hate on the big corporations.

I honestly think that IGN is terrible at reviewing games. They give good games low scores, while shitty ones get high scores. A good example of this is the fact that they gave No More Heroes a six, when Scarface got an eight.

I think that at the first available chance, I'll try to review the games in my library.

Hell, if you have a video capture device, or any decent screen recording software, you should start reviewing.

The only explicit reason to why I want to do this is because of the recent bullshit that's been happening over reviews (Atari suing bad reviews for Alone in the Dark under "piracy," Gerstmann being fired over a bad review (already stated,) Konami only letting reviewers review certain parts of MGS4, etc.)

Good looking bands?
I've seen better in Superman!

Have you actually ever played the game?

At 6/23/08 11:46 AM, BatDan wrote: You see, it's ratings like this that make me despise the numbers system in reviews.
Numbers do nothing but cause controversy, just look at Jeff Gerstmann's 8.8 review of Twilight Princess, only to find out it was pretty accurate, or his 6.0 Review of Kane & Lynch which GOT HIM FIRED!

That was on GameSpot, not IGN. And they're certainly getting paid for their reviews. A full 10 for GTA IV? Bullshit.

At 6/23/08 11:58 AM, Maverick-Alex wrote: " Deal with the handcramps "?? With something like that would get a highscore?

Numbers in reviews are ridiculous

He has a point

This thread is nothing but paranoia and people thinking their personal opinions are facts. IGN doesn't get paid off for good reviews, because quite frankly, they don't have to be. They're obviously one of the biggest of the game reviewing websites out there, and they get tons of ad revenue, plus money from the subscriptions of their "Insider" members, who I have to assume are all total morons.

The problem with IGN isn't that they're evil, it's that they're (ironically, considering this thread) more similar to 14-year-old NG video game forum users than they are to legitimate journalists. They have franchises and companies that they like and that they don't like, and they think that their favorites can do no wrong. It's pretty stupid, and even more apparent in their movie and TV reviews, where they're never satisfied unless there's tons of CGI and explosions.

IGN is full of drooling fanboys, not scheming sellouts. Honestly, I don't think they're smart enough to realize that bribery could be profitable. When you see a review you don't agree with and immediately declare that the reviewer must be being bribed because your holy opinion couldn't possibly be disagreed with, then you're no better than the nerdy little man-children at IGN.

yeah, something's up at IGN, I go for OXM instead, they actually give decent reviews and have pretty good info on upcomming games.

At 6/23/08 12:38 PM, Black-Flame wrote:

At 6/23/08 11:46 AM, BatDan wrote: You see, it's ratings like this that make me despise the numbers system in reviews.
Numbers do nothing but cause controversy, just look at Jeff Gerstmann's 8.8 review of Twilight Princess, only to find out it was pretty accurate, or his 6.0 Review of Kane & Lynch which GOT HIM FIRED!

That was on GameSpot, not IGN. And they're certainly getting paid for their reviews. A full 10 for GTA IV? Bullshit.

agreed 110% GTA IV was a nightmare, it seriously deserved like a 4 or 6 and thats just being generous...

At 6/23/08 12:23 PM, Deadly-Shadow wrote: I honestly think that IGN is terrible at reviewing games. They give good games low scores, while shitty ones get high scores. A good example of this is the fact that they gave No More Heroes a six, when Scarface got an eight.

I do not trust some reviewers because sometimes the things they say about a game are totally wrong. And yes they can be bribed.

It also appears that other reviewers are going to submit their own reviews in time.

I trust IGN. I don't necessarily always agree with their score (GTAIV is certainly one of them) but I trust that they're scores accurately reflect how the reviewer actually feels about the game. If you listen to IGN's Nintendo Voice Chat or Game Scoop podcasts, Craig Harris (the reviewer) has consistently talked about it being fun. If you really think he's lying, then go right ahead, but it's his honest opinion. Besides, it's not like IGN is getting paid off by Guitar Hero. Pretty much all the editors prefer Rock Band to Guitar Hero.

At 6/23/08 03:29 PM, Jezuz wrote: I never thought this until recently, when GTA IV and MGS4 got 10s

Do you really think they got paid? If so, then both games paid off a whole bunch of outlets since there were 10's all over the place. GTA IV wasn't m cup of tea, but again, the parts that were praised in GTAIV by Hillary were there, except for maybe the story, but I just didn't care. He had his reasons for giving it a 10, but the reasons he gave were things I didn't care as much about. Editors seemed to be so impressed with the city that they kind of overlooked the actual mission structure which was repetitive and overused.

As for MGS4, I would have given it a 10. There is really nothing I would change and I don't really know how the game could be made more compelling in the present time frame. In any case, there's no way IGN was paid for MGS4. Listen to podcast beyond from two weeks ago. All of the playstation editors had played the game in full and you could tell they were all genuinely excited about it.

and BF: BC get's a 8.6. None of those games deserved the scores they got, especially Bad Company, which is God awful and deserves no more than a 6 or 7.

Granted, I haven't bought it or played it past the demo since I'm not looking for an FPS, but the game seemed fine and the multiplayer and destruction seemed good. Who would pay for an 8.6 anyways?

Okay, that's it. IGN has got to go. they can't review games worth a crap.

you guys ever thing to... oh i dont know... not visit ign? i mean there are about 500000 other review sites and multiple mags. OXM has good reviews....

I can only imagine that vertical streak that's going to carve a swathe through every DS screen. I though mine was bad... With it's abuse from Ouendan... But... Jeez... This is just constant scratching in the same spot.

Honestly howdo you know that it's not a good game? Wow, it scratches the touch screen, it must be a bad game.

At 6/23/08 06:18 PM, mariomusicmaker1 wrote: you guys ever thing to... oh i dont know... not visit ign? i mean there are about 500000 other review sites and multiple mags. OXM has good reviews....

Halo 3: 10
Gears of War: 10
GTA IV: 10
Mass Effect: 10
Call of Duty 4: 10

They have been too liberal with their perfect scores lately. While Mass Effect and Call of Duty 4 are deserving of them, they are not perfect either.

At 6/23/08 07:18 PM, SniperWolf1564 wrote: Call of Duty 4

The fact that this game has grenades should bump it down to an 8.5.

At 6/23/08 12:23 PM, Deadly-Shadow wrote: I honestly think that IGN is terrible at reviewing games. They give good games low scores, while shitty ones get high scores. A good example of this is the fact that they gave No More Heroes a six, when Scarface got an eight.

7.8

Fail

At 6/23/08 08:51 PM, Jezuz wrote:

GTA IV not so much, but I think Hillary Goldstein is a bit of a fanboy as he hyped the game way beyond what he should have in that review. Sure, GTA IV was a good game, but it wasn't absolutely revolutionary as he led on. While I did like the game, it should have got a 9.9, for no game is truly perfect.

Read his review and IGN's rating guidelines over again. 10/10 does NOT mean that a game is perfect.

IGN does not get bribed or take in any money for its reviews. It is one of the largest and most financially sound companies in the business and would not risk its reputation.

At 6/23/08 07:18 PM, SniperWolf1564 wrote: Halo 3: 10
Gears of War: 10
GTA IV: 10
Mass Effect: 10
Call of Duty 4: 10

I agree that this a bit much, though I actually think that none of these games deserved 10's. Halo, CoD (to a lesser extent), and (to a slightly even lesser extent) Gears simply don't innovate enough. They stand out because they're so well-polished, but it's all still well-trodden territory. Mass Effect and GTA IV have some incredible, innovative aspects and are great experiences, but they're riddled with technical issues and the occasional flat-out boring gameplay. Note, though, that a 10 game is NOT perfect, but incredible and iconic to the point where its faults are negligible. At least IGN realizes that much.

Honestly, I don't understand why everyone is suddenly lashing out at GTA IV. It's a great game, and within IGN's criteria, it deserved a 10 from them. I think it's just a bandwagon thing, that a month or so after a game comes out, the hype starts wearing off and the faults start to become more apparent, and then people get all pissy because no matter how great a game is, nothing can ever live up to the ridiculous hype that the modern game industry creates. You'll all see, a month from now, everyone will hate MGS 4. It's ridiculous.

At 6/23/08 09:34 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: Honestly, I don't understand why everyone is suddenly lashing out at GTA IV.

As far as I know, none of the GTA games deserve perfect scores. Most missions in GTA IV just come down to "kill this guy."

At 6/23/08 08:51 PM, Jezuz wrote: GTA IV not so much, but I think Hillary Goldstein is a bit of a fanboy as he hyped the game way beyond what he should have in that review. Sure, GTA IV was a good game, but it wasn't absolutely revolutionary as he led on. While I did like the game, it should have got a 9.9, for no game is truly perfect.

Oh, I completely agree with you that the game was not everything it was led on to be. I wouldn't go as high as a 9.9, probably more of a 9.4 or something. I think he just tended to appreciate things that I didn't care about and overlooked things that I thought were important.

There's a lot of people that act genuinely excited about a infomercial too, but that's all it is: An act. MGS4 got many less 10s than GTA IV, and what I liked about IGN was the fact that they didn't give out 10s to every game that was hyped up. Now they're no different than GameSpot or Team Xbox or one of those other shitty websites that so graciously give out 10s to every game and their cousins.

Yes, because now all videogame editors are esteemed actors. Listen to the podcast and tell me that you don't think they're genuinely giddy. It's not like they're handing 10's out to every game. It's been two in around about 10 years. The fact that the two were close together in just coincidental. I doubt we'll see another 10 from ign for another good while.

More than a 7.5 that's for sure. The demo was incredibly boring, and I really don't know how gamers have such low standards for shooters nowadays.

Well, demos are not always the best standard for deciding how good a game is. I really didn't enjoy it either, but I don't think you can accurately gauge how good a game will be in about a 15 minute snippet of early gameplay.

At 6/23/08 10:56 PM, SniperWolf1564 wrote: As far as I know, none of the GTA games deserve perfect scores. Most missions in GTA IV just come down to "kill this guy."

Pretty much, yeah, but taken as a whole, they're all good games, and I think that IV can actually be counted among the great games. What I'm saying is that it's odd that a month ago, GTA IV was God's gift to mankind, and now everyone hates it.

At 6/24/08 12:07 AM, Dr-Worm wrote: Pretty much, yeah, but taken as a whole, they're all good games, and I think that IV can actually be counted among the great games. What I'm saying is that it's odd that a month ago, GTA IV was God's gift to mankind, and now everyone hates it.

It was god's gift previous to anyone having played it outside of the press. After having played it, it gets old fast and is really repetitive. It seems like there are a lot of people that share my sentiments, but there are certainly still some that enjoy it extensively.

At 6/24/08 12:20 AM, Jerkapotamus wrote:

At 6/24/08 12:07 AM, Dr-Worm wrote: Pretty much, yeah, but taken as a whole, they're all good games, and I think that IV can actually be counted among the great games. What I'm saying is that it's odd that a month ago, GTA IV was God's gift to mankind, and now everyone hates it.

It was god's gift previous to anyone having played it outside of the press. After having played it, it gets old fast and is really repetitive. It seems like there are a lot of people that share my sentiments, but there are certainly still some that enjoy it extensively.

Don't get me wrong, I got sucked into it when I started playing it, it's just that when I realized that the missions were very similar, I just got bored.

That, and your friends are the biggest bunch of whiny bitches I have ever seen:

"WHY HAVE YOU NOT DONE ANYTHING WITH ME YESTERDAY? I THINK WE'RE FALLING APART."

While not similar to what they actually say, you should get the point anyways.

This is why I have never looked at an IGN or Gamespot review in seriousness as though they are always right. I use them as a guiding hand a little bit but common sense allows me to see through sometimes when I know they've under-ranked or over-ranked blatantly.