Should IGN's game reviews be investigated?
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
IGN is planning on giving Spider-man 2 a 9/10 no matter what
Should IGN's game reviews be investigated?
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
What are the charges, officer? Running a bad company?
If it was Push Square or any Playstation inclined reviewers this would not be a problem, but IGN is supposed to be neutral. Imagine if a podcast with an IGN employee said they were going to give Starfield a 9/10 no matter what.
When did IGN become the bastion of journalism?
They used to be MTV/RoosterTeeth/CollegeHumor but for video games.
When people started taking them seriously
You don't have to look too far to see where their influence is right now, like Starfield
>IGN is supposed to be neutral
Bullshit. They have their own digital storefront for games.
They benefit by giving games good reviews.
So fricking what?
You don't base your purchases off a review... do you?
Yes, I do. I judge games based on their metacritic score. Any score below 89 is not worth playing.
But anon, these games are a 9/10, or else.
I don't but most people do. And as we've seen on Ganker, a lot of anons are slave to metacritic.
Yes,but I only read negative reviews and see if I can tolerate whatever bullshit is in the game
I'm so sick of cat avatargays.
I'm sick of you
>purchases
you can buy games ?
I base my game purchases off of streamer gameplay and peer reviews on Ganker
The % reviews on Steam as well as how big theyre willing to discount it says more than any other review. Frequent -40% and +80% positive is better than a 10/10
yeah?
thats why its there you fricking idiot
/v/tards need to jerk off to a high number made up by some moronic journalists to feel like their game is good, if it's low then it's bad no matter what. Coming from the platform that contributed to gamergate this is pathetic
Not since Dragon Age 2.
Yes, I'm still pissed off that PCG gave it such a high score.
I recall a gamespot review where the reviewer managed to miss the portal system in Titan Quest giving it a really low score since he had to run back to town with a full inventory every time. When people pointed it out he only boosted the review score by a tiny amount. After that I gave up on reviewers entirely. These days I watch live gameplay on mute to decide for myself if it's worth my time.
>These days I watch live gameplay on mute
What about the music?
gib more context. did one of them say that after playing it? If so, that is a completely normal thing to say if they like it
They all played it and the Black person said he "would bet" one of them gives it a 9/10, and if they don't, they're gonna have "words" on their podcast/show thing
I just checked that X user and they're a rabid Xbox shill. Shameful.
>H-HES JUST A MICROSOFT SHILL!!!!!
lol
>IGN France
Same morons gave Transfield a 10 as well. Cope.
>H-HES JUST A MICROSOFT SHILL!!!!!
yes
>this just in
>ign reviewers suck wiener
>matter of fact, they all do
>objects the water touches are wet
>here is Tom with the weather
Great thread.
IGN review was very relevant on Starfield. OH WAIT! We're in Snoy territory. IGN is a weapon they use, not a platform.
Honestly who cares? Spider-man is gonna be a great game that deserves it anyways.
>largest ~~*game reviewing*~~ website double fist jerks off a massively popular capeshit game console seller
more news at 11. fricking Starfield sold a bunch of Xboxes despite this generation having zero console exclusives worth playing.
Yikes!
>PeterOvo
>Guy who shills Microsoft like it's a cult
>unironic PeterOvo thread
That's all AAA games, they barely even play games.
They've played enough to know it's a 9 and Xbox cucks can't handle it
>Peter Ovo
Frick off back there.
reviews are a form of advertising, not an assessment of the quality of the game
Most reviewers are corrupt but not in the way most people seem to think. They're incentivised from both the publisher, the reader and by extension their own company to take the safest, easiest option when it comes to reviewing games. Poorly rating a well recieved game garners negative reactions from gamers and lowers the likelyhood of collaboration and early review codes from publishers. From a pure buisness perspective there is nothing good that comes from rocking the boat like that.
That's why the review scores have inflated, 80 is a game not worth playing.
As they should. It deserves it
There’s nothing to investigate really they have not been honest for 20 years