Doobie_wop said:
radiantshadow92 said:
Doobie_wop said:
I have no interest in the game, I didn't even know about it before GDC and I can confidently say that I can pick out eight flaws in that review. It reads like a review written by someone who doesn't play games very often or makes very poor choices and comparisons when it comes to writing the review.
The main flaw is that he knew the score and then wrote the review, the text should always come first and then the score has to be based around the text.
Minor, but silly flaw, but they shouldn't compare a game with a limited budget, different goals and different styles, to the two most graphically monstrous First Person Shooters on the market. Halo: Reach, Battlefield: BC2 and Black Ops were'nt compared to Killzone 2 and Crysis (in the visuals department), so I don't see why Homefront should have been picked out.
Barely any info on the multi-player, despite it being one of it's main and most positive features.
Colin also didn't mention the differences between the platforms. Some recent comparisons have come out and have shown that the 360 version has some serious texture issues, but it was never brought up. Judging by the video review, it looks like he only played the 360 version and decided that the PS3 and PC version aren't worth mentioning, despite the PS3 version being the lead platform and the PC version looking fantastic (according to other sites).
I can go on, but then I'd go long and I don't want to bog the page down. Consistency is the key, I don't want to read a blog, I want to read an IGN review.
|
you should email that to beyond@ign.com lol..im sure colin would love to read it.
|
The IGN staff don't read it anyway. Judging from their various podcasts, their public panels and plenty of interviews, you can tell that many of the members of their stuff are extremely stuck up and stubborn. Most reviewers will never acknowledge that they've made mistakes and due to a close knit work environment, they are rarely ever told off.
Giant Bomb and Classic Game Room HD are the only two independent outlets I trust, mainly because I've gotten to know their reviewers and they are extremely experienced and open with what they do.
I like IGN, I just wish that they'd work harder to stay consistent and factual. The same applies to Eurogamer, Joystiq and Destructoid. I hate Edge though, they probably write the best out of all the other outlets, but they are incostistent as fuck and it's always the same three reviewers making the three same pre misconciptions and mistakes. Edge aren't harsh, they just don't know what they're doing half the time.
|
and if you watch the video review, it sounds like an 8.5
he says it has a 5 hour campain, but so does pretty much all Call of duty's.
he also says the multiplayer is really fun, though doesnt mention much of it.
for the past 6 months ign's reviews confuse me.
im also sick of 1 page and 1.5 page reviews (even KZ3 was a 1 page review, then they did some formating, and it made it into a 1.5 page)
edit: its also puzzling that he compared the graphics to KZ3 and crysis and because it doesnt stand up to them, he critizes it. if they were consistant, that means 99% of games including call of duty should get 5's (but ironically enough MW2 got a 10)
