By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - IGN Again Illustrates Why I No Longer Visit Their Site.

Ajescent on 28 October 2011
ishiki said:
well this case.

It is a critisism if you want to play the game on easy. It's not a fulfilling to that particular person it should get dinged. If they don't want people to play it in easy. DONT PUT AN EASY MODE IN.

However stated. I know review in formats are not that good. But videogame reviews everywhere in general are so awful essentially everywhere including this site. Yes there might be a few reviews. But videogame reviewers have.

But look at the meta average everywhere. The review scale should not be 90% in the 6-10 range. That's omitting 6 whole points on the scale.

Oh it could be argued that hiding the endings from easy mode adds replayability?



PS One/2/p/3slim/Vita owner. I survived the Apocalyps3/Collaps3 and all I got was this lousy signature.


Xbox One: What are you doing Dave?

Around the Network
ishiki on 28 October 2011
Ajescent said:
ishiki said:
well this case.

It is a critisism if you want to play the game on easy. It's not a fulfilling to that particular person it should get dinged. If they don't want people to play it in easy. DONT PUT AN EASY MODE IN.

However stated. I know review in formats are not that good. But videogame reviews everywhere in general are so awful essentially everywhere including this site. Yes there might be a few reviews. But videogame reviewers have.

But look at the meta average everywhere. The review scale should not be 90% in the 6-10 range. That's omitting 6 whole points on the scale.

Oh it could be argued that hiding the endings from easy mode adds replayability?

yes, but from that revieweres perspective it didn't. That's why there are more than 1 review on the internet. From that persons perspective the review was completely valid imo.

if you don't like the game that much to begin with you're not going to want to replay it again. It can add replay value for certain people, and I'm sure it's reflected in those reviewers scores. Or it can negatively take away from the experience like it did in this case. The perspectives should even out.

Obviously the best review would incorporate both perspectives but then assigning it a numerical score doesn't really work.



Ajescent on 28 October 2011
ishiki said:
Ajescent said:
ishiki said:
well this case.

It is a critisism if you want to play the game on easy. It's not a fulfilling to that particular person it should get dinged. If they don't want people to play it in easy. DONT PUT AN EASY MODE IN.

However stated. I know review in formats are not that good. But videogame reviews everywhere in general are so awful essentially everywhere including this site. Yes there might be a few reviews. But videogame reviewers have.

But look at the meta average everywhere. The review scale should not be 90% in the 6-10 range. That's omitting 6 whole points on the scale.

Oh it could be argued that hiding the endings from easy mode adds replayability?

yes, but from that revieweres perspective it didn't. That's why there are more than 1 review on the internet. From that persons perspective the review was completely valid imo.

if you don't like the game that much to begin with you're not going to want to replay it again. It can add replay value for certain people, and I'm sure it's reflected in those reviewers scores. Or it can negatively take away from the experience like it did in this case. The perspectives should even out.

Obviously the best review would incorporate both perspectives but then assigning it a numerical score doesn't really work.

But...it's his job, it's what he gets paid to do...played the game from start to finish and test the game as best he can.

Everybody knows that Easy mode is when the game doesn't try too hard. Think about it, if Dark Souls had an "easy mode" for example and the reviewer played that and then said the game was really easy and didn't live up to the expectation. That's being unfair to the game, it's the exact opposite of people moaning that game X didn't get 10/10 without playing it.



PS One/2/p/3slim/Vita owner. I survived the Apocalyps3/Collaps3 and all I got was this lousy signature.


Xbox One: What are you doing Dave?

ishiki on 28 October 2011
Ajescent said:
ishiki said:
Ajescent said:
ishiki said:
well this case.

It is a critisism if you want to play the game on easy. It's not a fulfilling to that particular person it should get dinged. If they don't want people to play it in easy. DONT PUT AN EASY MODE IN.

However stated. I know review in formats are not that good. But videogame reviews everywhere in general are so awful essentially everywhere including this site. Yes there might be a few reviews. But videogame reviewers have.

But look at the meta average everywhere. The review scale should not be 90% in the 6-10 range. That's omitting 6 whole points on the scale.

Oh it could be argued that hiding the endings from easy mode adds replayability?

yes, but from that revieweres perspective it didn't. That's why there are more than 1 review on the internet. From that persons perspective the review was completely valid imo.

if you don't like the game that much to begin with you're not going to want to replay it again. It can add replay value for certain people, and I'm sure it's reflected in those reviewers scores. Or it can negatively take away from the experience like it did in this case. The perspectives should even out.

Obviously the best review would incorporate both perspectives but then assigning it a numerical score doesn't really work.

But...it's his job, it's what he gets paid to do...played the game from start to finish and test the game as best he can.

Everybody knows that Easy mode is when the game doesn't try too hard. Think about it, if Dark Souls had an "easy mode" for example and the reviewer played that and then said the game was really easy and didn't live up to the expectation. That's being unfair to the game, it's the exact opposite of people moaning that game X didn't get 10/10 without playing it.

dark soul's doesn't have an easy mode. for the people that want to play it in easy mode like "darth" it should be fulfilling.

He should have played it in other modes. But I mean, I'm pretty sure revieweres didn't review dark soul's in it's enhanced difficulty  after beating it once. and other games to the like. Or Catherine in all the modes, theres' only so much time reviewers can dictate to a game.



Ajescent on 28 October 2011
ishiki said:
Ajescent said:
ishiki said:
Ajescent said:
ishiki said:
well this case.

It is a critisism if you want to play the game on easy. It's not a fulfilling to that particular person it should get dinged. If they don't want people to play it in easy. DONT PUT AN EASY MODE IN.

However stated. I know review in formats are not that good. But videogame reviews everywhere in general are so awful essentially everywhere including this site. Yes there might be a few reviews. But videogame reviewers have.

But look at the meta average everywhere. The review scale should not be 90% in the 6-10 range. That's omitting 6 whole points on the scale.

Oh it could be argued that hiding the endings from easy mode adds replayability?

yes, but from that revieweres perspective it didn't. That's why there are more than 1 review on the internet. From that persons perspective the review was completely valid imo.

if you don't like the game that much to begin with you're not going to want to replay it again. It can add replay value for certain people, and I'm sure it's reflected in those reviewers scores. Or it can negatively take away from the experience like it did in this case. The perspectives should even out.

Obviously the best review would incorporate both perspectives but then assigning it a numerical score doesn't really work.

But...it's his job, it's what he gets paid to do...played the game from start to finish and test the game as best he can.

Everybody knows that Easy mode is when the game doesn't try too hard. Think about it, if Dark Souls had an "easy mode" for example and the reviewer played that and then said the game was really easy and didn't live up to the expectation. That's being unfair to the game, it's the exact opposite of people moaning that game X didn't get 10/10 without playing it.

dark soul's doesn't have an easy mode. for the people that want to play it in easy mode like "darth" it should be fulfilling.

He should have played it in other modes. But I mean, I'm pretty sure revieweres didn't review dark soul's in it's enhanced difficulty  after beating it once. and other games to the like. Or Catherine in all the modes, theres' only so much time reviewers can dictate to a game.

I know it doesn't, it was an example. ¬_¬

If you can't play the whole game, then you play a happy medium to get a full representation of it.

How can you judge the quality of the AI for example if you don't play it hard

For example, I would never have realised how broken Pro Evo 12 was if I hadn't played it on all difficulty levels.

If you don't have enough time to do multiple playthroughs then play it once on Medium to get the best of both worlds. I don't buy the excuse that oh noes!!221 my job is too hard, I don't have enough time!!

If you can't finish the game, either ask for more time or say so in your review, don't then lie and say the game failed you, that's inexcusable.



PS One/2/p/3slim/Vita owner. I survived the Apocalyps3/Collaps3 and all I got was this lousy signature.


Xbox One: What are you doing Dave?

Around the Network
Andrespetmonkey on 28 October 2011
RolStoppable said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
Mr Khan said:
Andrespetmonkey said:

LOL what "offense". Him having an opinion that you don't agree with?  

Some opinions are verifiably wrong. That was one of them.

What was wrong with it? I dunno it's just hard to trust your judgement here, I mean, your sig about mario xD

It's clearly an opinion that is supported by cherry-picking. Highlight all positive aspects of 'Splosion Man and ignore the negative ones while doing the opposite for New Super Mario Bros. Wii. It's an incredible and blatantly one-sided way to compare two games which makes it a verifiably wrong opinion, because the author of the editorial deliberately ignores certain points.

Just look at all the exhibits.

A) More originality: A new IP is more original than an established one. What a shocker.

B) Online co-op and leaderboards: A 2D platformer like Super Mario Bros. where characters can bump into each other to do good and bad stuff requires pixel perfect precision. The slightest bit of lag would ruin the experience. We live in a time when even one-on-one 2D fighting games aren't safe from lag, now imagine connecting not just two, but four systems over the internet. It's not really feasible on a highly consistent basis.

Online leaderboards are just reaching.

C) More content: He only mentions the number of levels, but not their length, variety or quality.

That is all he got. Based on these exhibits, any new IP in any genre is better than a comparable established game, if only it has online and more levels. Gameplay? Doesn't matter at all, according to him.

But the reality is that for a 2D platformer gameplay is what matters by far the most. What can 'Splosion Man do? Run and explode up to three times, including wall sploding. What can Mario do? Walk or run and jump at different heights depending on how long you press the button. This alone gives the platforming in Mario already much more variety than 'Splosion Man can offer. But Mario can also double and triple jump, wall jump, stomp, crouch, slide and he also has more options to interact with his surroundings than 'Splosion Man.

The fact of the matter is that the only way Hatfield's opinion can be defended is by completely ignoring the platforming controls, mechanics and physics of both games. This is an absolutely dishonest approach to a comparison. Especially when he then on page 2 goes on to ridicule the people who like the gameplay of the Super Mario Bros. series as if it would be a sin to like the most wellcrafted and polished platformer series in existence. You might as well complain that straight man are attracted to beautiful women and how unfair it is that they don't think your average looking girlfriend is hot.

From there on out it just turns into a rant that can be summed up by "I hate Nintendo so much. I really do.", because he had not much to back up his opinion to begin with.

A) I think that's a legit reason. Like you said, a new IP is more original than an established one, just because that's obvious doesn't mean it isn't a good point.
B) Just because it wouldn't work well in that game, doesn't mean it doesn't exist in comparison to another game. If his point is, game 1 has good co-op, game 2 doesn't, and that's another reason to pick game 1 over game 2, there is nothing wrong with that. 
3) I agree with you there.

Basically it boils down to him giving an opinion. He knows that not everyone will agree with him and even if the opinion isn't supported very well, it's still an opinion. Even if he asserts that this is so, he's assuming everyone will still realise it's just his opinion.

The one thing that really pisses me off is that he'll get so much shit for something rare like that, but he won't ever get the same amount of attention for the brilliant podcasts he produces and hosts or his other great reviews and editorials. 



My Music

silicon on 28 October 2011
Runa216 said:
silicon said:
Why ever trust reviewers????

1) They're not experts, i.e. they don't play all games and study the art of making games. They play a few and give a number. They're heavily biased based on the games they've played previously. Metacritic CEO argued for people to play worse games (which have very few reviews by comparison) so that people improve their sense of judgement.

2) Even if they were experts, there's a lot of evidence showing the experts don't know shit. I.e. wine experts couldn't tell the difference between red and white wine, while the average person could!

3) People don't like new and innovative ideas. There are studies that show people associate creativity with vomit.

4) People have a ton of biases in their opinions. One is selection bias. If someone makes a choice between several options, they will like their choice more regardless. Basically if you buy a game because you want to, you'll likely enjoy it more rather then make the choice based on someones opinion.

5) Who knows who they talked to!!? Studies also show that if someone tells a person something, that may replace their memory of the actual event!

6) Internets are made for hits! Sites like Huffington post constantly change the headings of their articles in order to get the most hits for each article. Economics says site views > integrity.

7) Everyone has a different personality type! Meaning, everyone will enjoy something for different reasons!!! More time should be spent understanding yourself then interpreting and understanding someone else.

There are probably more reasons to never take reviews into consideration.

Whooooah boy...slow down a bit...

1 - Reviewers may not be 'experts', but they know games.  If you're doing reviews you're expected to have a wide range of tastes and play a lot of games, so it's fair to say that MOST reviewers do in fact know more about games than the average gamer (who in turn usually picks a genre or two and doesn't know much outside of that).  Also, we're expected to play good games and bad games, but in my experience, any attempts to give a game a deservedly negative review (see: Duke Nukem Forever) is hit with a wave of hatred, which is likely why too many reviwers are scoring every game in the 70-90 range.  Hell, Eurogamer gave Uncharted 3 an 8 (which, while low compared to others and their own review of 2), which wasn't that bad and the internet went nuts!  

2 - I have no words for this statement.  

3 - urge to mock rising...

4 - This happens to everyone, even regular gamers.  though a lot of the reviewers I know are able to differentiate between their own opinion and their objective score.  for example, I HATED Final Fantasy Dissidia 2, but when I reviewed it, I gave it an 8.6 because frankly it was a good game...regardless of my tastes. Just because you (and the general public) are unable to differentiate between objectivity and subjectivity doesn't mean that everyone is.  

5 - what in the hell does this refer to? 

6 - Yes, but most sites would rather have hits for integrity than hits for sensationalism.  It's the publisher in-between that's often the problem. 

7 - This is another point about the objectivity vs subjectivity thing.  a good game reviewer knows that a sports game is not likely to appeal to the same crowd as a family title, so they review according to what THAT group would want.  Simple as that.  If you don't believe this happens or is at least the goal, then perhaps YOUR bias is getting to you.  

Seriously, I can't tell if this post is a joke or not since half of your 'arguments' can't be taken seriously, while t he others are common misconceptions which would, under normal circumstances, merely be grounds for correction. 

I was being serious :(

I'm not sure if they're misconceptions since they're based on research, so maybe the misconception is that they are misconceptions?

Regarding 5 - there was a study which showed that people are easily influence by social interactions. People will generally remember an event differently if someone tells them the event occured differently. Basically if your friend likes a game and describes it as being fun, it might change the memory of your experience with the game.

Another take on #5 is reading a review and becoming aware of a fault that would generally be unnoticed. If someone points out the characters in a particular game don't blink, for example, it may draw too much attention when playing the game. Before I may not have thought twice about it. But once I become aware of it my enjoyment of the game could be negatively impacted. 

It sounds like you're a game reviewer... and I don't mean to say that game reviewers are BAD, but for me personally, I generally enjoy games more if I don't read game reviews.



Andrespetmonkey on 28 October 2011
RolStoppable said:
Andrespetmonkey said:

A) I think that's a legit reason. Like you said, a new IP is more original than an established one, just because that's obvious doesn't mean it isn't a good point.
B) Just because it wouldn't work well in that game, doesn't mean it doesn't exist in comparison to another game. If his point is, game 1 has good co-op, game 2 doesn't, and that's another reason to pick game 1 over game 2, there is nothing wrong with that. 
3) I agree with you there.

Basically it boils down to him giving an opinion. He knows that not everyone will agree with him and even if the opinion isn't supported very well, it's still an opinion. Even if he asserts that this is so, he's assuming everyone will still realise it's just his opinion.

The one thing that really pisses me off is that he'll get so much shit for something rare like that, but he won't ever get the same amount of attention for the brilliant podcasts he produces and hosts or his other great reviews and editorials. 

A) It's a moot point, because it is a given. The Conduit is also more original than Killzone 2, but it really isn't a point that speaks against Guerilla's game, because many people do like the Killzone universe.

B) This point is restricted to online co-op. He doesn't talk about local multiplayer. Logically, if 'Splosion Man had better multiplayer on the whole, he would have mentioned it. As it is, he only talks about what NSMB Wii doesn't have. Which is basically all he ever could bring up in favor of 'Splosion Man. All of his three exhibits were restricted to what NSMB Wii didn't have: Originality, online co-op and leaderboards and 100 levels. The actual quality of the platforming is a subject he never touches.

As a writer for one of the biggest gaming websites on the internet, we should hold Daemon Hatfield to a higher standard than an average forum poster. Page 2 of his editorial is really nothing to be proud of. If a gaming journalist decides to write a controversial editorial, he better explains himself well.

He probably doesn't get praise for the rest of his work, because hardly anyone thinks of it as "brilliant".

I keep my original reasons. Sure, maybe he should of defended himself better, but my more important point was that this is a very rare occurance, infact, I'm not aware of anything else he's done like that. And people are so quick to talk shit about him and ignore his other stuff, and a pretty big reason as to why people do this is simly because he works for ign.

"we should hold Daemon Hatfield to a higher standard than an average forum poster "And I do, but I can see past one apparantly crappy editorial to see a lot of his much better work. He probably regrets that editorial and has learnt from it. 

 

He actually does get a crapload of praise for a lot of his stuff, especially his podcasts and music. What bothers me is how people talk so much shit about him on well, forums. It's one editorial for fucks sake xD. And he explained in a blog post what happened with pixeljunk. http://www.ign.com/blogs/daemon-ign/2011/10/26/concerning-my-pixeljunk-sidescroller-review/



My Music

Andrespetmonkey on 28 October 2011
RolStoppable said:
Andrespetmonkey said:

I keep my original reasons. Sure, maybe he should of defended himself better, but my more important point was that this is a very rare occurance, infact, I'm not aware of anything else he's done like that. And people are so quick to talk shit about him and ignore his other stuff, and a pretty big reason as to why people do this is simly because he works for ign.

"we should hold Daemon Hatfield to a higher standard than an average forum poster "And I do, but I can see past one apparantly crappy editorial to see a lot of his much better work. He probably regrets that editorial and has learnt from it. 

 

He actually does get a crapload of praise for a lot of his stuff, especially his podcasts and music. What bothers me is how people talk so much shit about him on well, forums. It's one editorial for fucks sake xD. And he explained in a blog post what happened with pixeljunk. http://www.ign.com/blogs/daemon-ign/2011/10/26/concerning-my-pixeljunk-sidescroller-review/

And I do, but I can see past one apparantly crappy editorial to see a lot of his much better work. He probably regrets that editorial and learnt from it.

It really isn't just one crappy editorial he wrote, but pretty much everything Nintendo-related he did. Because of that there can be two completely different perceptions of Daemon Hatfield. If you know pretty much only what he did when it comes to Nintendo, he is one of the worst journalists in the business. If you only followed his work when it comes to the HD consoles, he might actually be quite decent at his job.

Apparently he was on that infamous Nintendo podcast that IGN put together for the sole sake of garnering traffic (which they admitted to). They pretty much devoted the entire thing to Nintendo trolling.

Everything Nintendo-related he did? Such as? I've only seen 2 or 3 articles. Only one was badly recieved. 

"that infamous Nintendo podcast that IGN put together for the sole sake of garnering traffic"xD Nintendo voice chat was put together before daemon was even at IGN, it's not "infamous" in the slightest, unless you are talking about a specific episode. 

"If you only followed his work when it comes to the HD consoles, he might actually be quite decent at his job." I think he's a lot more than "quite decent" at it, I'm pretty confident in saying he's actually one of the best reviewers around, I've seen plenty of people who will agree with that. He also hosts and produces the most popular gaming podcast on the internet. Look, after listening to him on his show for the last year and a half, it's clear that he's very objective when it comes to things he posts on the site, and I think he's probably the only editor at ign that doesn't have a clear preference to one system or company. Also, he's a nice guy. 

I won't go into detail as to why I defend this guy so much, but do you see my point here? You can't judge him as a whole based on a few articles. That's like judging Speilberg on Gremlins 2. (Not comparing Speilberg to Hatfield here lol)



My Music

pariz on 28 October 2011

I try to read 3 or 4 reviews when I'm getting interested in a game and I need to know what critics think about it. Most of the time, though, I give a lot of credit to gametrailers reviews.



Play, Create & Share: the Photography Thread!