IGN bias against PS3

Forums - Gaming Discussion - IGN bias against PS3

It shouldn't be surprising though, coming from the site that awarded MW2 with a 10 in Graphics and a perfect 10 to GTA4, calling its story "Oscar worthy" lol. Thank God my browser is having problems with the IGN page. I know I just went in there to explain my point, but it's something I do it at the risk of losing my sanity. Piece of shit site.

Around the Network
gekkokamen said:

This is an excerpt from IGN's MASS EFFECT 2 review :  http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/106/1062898p2.html


"Speaking of pleasing people, BioWare listened to every last bit of criticism leveled at Mass Effect 1. That game, particularly on Xbox 360, suffered from a few technical and presentational issues**. This sequel is a much, much cleaner experience. Long elevator rides and slow-loading textures are gone, replaced with (occasionally lengthy) loading screens. Generic cut-and-paste side quests and empty planets to explore have been totally ripped out. Pretty much everything that anybody took even the slightest issue with in Mass Effect 1 has been axed or rebuilt entirely."

He continues "I've played through the game twice and during that time experienced sound cutting out, my character getting stuck in the environment and full game crashes. Thankfully, these miscues are infrequent, which allows the art style to shine.

And yet they scored Mass Effect 2 presentation a  PERFECT 10

What's that called?   B.I.A.S  aka bullshit.


But let me continue :

So the guy recognizes the first one was not particularly well ironed-out at all. It had issues, I dare say lots of them. But still, he recognizes they existed.

Care to explain now how come IGN then awarded the first MASS EFFECT with a 9.4 and most hilarous of all, they score it a HIGH 9.5 IN PRESENTATION.

What's that called again? yeap. Childish fanboy BIAS aka GTFO


Notice the SAME guy from IGN wrote both reviews.


BUT HEY! GOD OF WAR III presentation is 8.5 ! Where are my game-crashing glitches? where's my horrible framerate and texture pop-in? where's my long loading times? where's my characters looking like cardboard dolls while moving and talking???? is there any of that in GOWIII? THANK THE LORD THERE ISN'T OR IT WOULD'VE GOTTEN A  6 FOR PRESENTATION!


And that my friends, is BIAS.

**Few my ass.

Hold up......Mass Effect rightfully deserves a 9.5 for presentation as it had some of the best graphics for its time but its technical problems docked it a .5 .....ME2 is the same issue but since it didnt have nearly the amount of problems it wasnt warrented to dock it a .5 in presentation.

And why do you bring GOW3 into this....Did you play GOW3? No? Then  I suggest you shut up unless your going to tell me you played the demo or watched videos (which ill still tell you to shut up even if you told me as such).....you have no ground to even accuse other people/sites of having an agenda when clearly ,judging by your post ,that is exactly what you have.

N64 is the ONLY console of the fifth generation!!!

gekkokamen said:
It shouldn't be surprising though, coming from the site that awarded MW2 with a 10 in Graphics and a perfect 10 to GTA4, calling its story "Oscar worthy" lol. Thank God my browser is having problems with the IGN page. I know I just went in there to explain my point, but it's something I do it at the risk of losing my sanity. Piece of shit site.

I take it you had no problem with IGN giving MGS4 a 10?

N64 is the ONLY console of the fifth generation!!!

^I take it you have nothing to add to this discussion..

And if there's any game deserving high praise is MGS4, although NO, IT'S NOT A 10 in my book, and it shouldn't be. My discussion is not about preferences, it's about hard facts.

FACT: IGN doesn't measure all the games with the same ruler, even when it comes to same guy writing a review. I could make a case about it, including plenty of PS3 exlcusives.

Do they leave their writers to do whatever they want with their reviews? think again. It's business, it doesn't work that way. They have their higher-ups monitoring what's in and what's out, but those guys don't do a very good job.

FACT: they use the same review for multiple versions of games, but whenever they feel like it they don't. Inconsistent, unprofessional, and not accurate.

FACT: Their aspects grading (presentation, graphics, sound, gameplay, lasting appeal) is inconsistent and vague. I wonder if they even read their previous reviews when they're working on a sequel (see Mass Effect example on previous post above).

gekkokamen said:

^you call inconsistent scoring flawed games 9.6 and 9.4 ? with presentation scores of 10 and 9.5 respectively? and then Scoring a game witth a seemingly flawless presentation based on the written review a 8.5 (in presentation) ?? OoooooooooooooooooooooK.....

Did you not read what I said?  It is inconsistant.  There is no way for two "opinions" to be the same if they are made by 2 different people (talking about ME vs say a JRPG).  That is why it is inconsistant and needs to A) not be rushed out the damn door and B) to have an editor to make sure the negative points get docked accordingly.

Do I agree with the scores for ME 1/2 ?  Yes, but that is only because I played them both on a high end gaming PC.  Can I say the same for the Xbox? No, I never played that version (tho my roommate did and only EVER complained about load times).


Around the Network

@jesus kung fu magic

PD. You shut up!

docking down .5 for all of Mass Effects flaws? don't make me laugh.

And how about scoring ME2 a fucking perfect 10 when the guy clearly says IT HAS PROBLEMS, serious game crashing problems, long loading times and stuff? are you blind or did you just cherry-picked what I clearly highlighted above? STFU! you're defending the undefendable.

Does the GOW3 review mention anything of that sort? those glitches, stuttering framerate and such you find plenty of in ME1 ? NO . NO fuck NO. And it gets a 8.5 for presentation. Dude get over yourself. Enjoy your IGN! I don't give a shit about what you think.

This category includes everything from the quality of the manual and packaging to the menu layout, load times, and included game options. We also consider the overall production, licenses, atmosphere, and style.

thats how they review presentation. gow3 got a 8.5 and me2 got a 10..... ign cant stop santa monica from making a better game and shane from gametrailers cant stop me from buying gow3

Presentation with IGN includes story which is why ME1 and 2 both received such high scores. Had the infrequent technical problems of the first one (and the almost non-existent problems of the 2nd) not been there, the scores probably would have been 10's.

As for GOW 3, that presentation score seems a little low from the clips I've seen, but they do say the story is a problem, maybe to them that is more important, maybe the game has some of those minor technical problems, I don't know.

OT: This conversation doesn't need the added language from anybody. The thread creator wanted discuss IGN being Bias against the PS3 games, I think we can do that without calling each other out.

Fab_GS said:
Because there's no groundbreaking difference between FFXIII on the X360 and the PS3 except the graphics. Even the X360 version has a better frame rate and shorter load times.
The difference between Bayonetta on the other hand was big. Very big.

The XBOX 360 Version dose not have better Frame Rate or sorter load times. 


Japanese Pop Culture Otaku

IGN is not biased in faver of 360 or PS3 they Review Games equally on both systems I agree that they should tack technical differences into account but FFXIII on XBOX 360 is no Bayonetta it is worse visually because of the compression but it runs about the same so 8.6 360 8.9 PS3 would be more like it.

Japanese Pop Culture Otaku