Quantcast
In defense of IGN.

Forums - Gaming Discussion - In defense of IGN.

I couldn't quite get away with this thread six months ago I don't think.  For a long time Sony fans have held IGN up as the standard-bearer of impartiality.  It has helped that they are often inclined to give very high marks to Sony exclusives, whilst dishing out great, but less than brilliant marks to Xbox 360 exclusives.

But recently, the standard-bearing site of gaming released another part of their "Top 25 consoles of all time" list, and suddenly IGN are (and I quote from the thread concerning said list) "Biased and Fail." 

But ultimately all IGN are doing is recognising that the majority of the hardcore gaming community is of the opinion that the Xbox 360 offers more, better, varied gaming experiences than it's direct competitors.  As an owner of all three systems, I can honestly claim to have tried most of the gems each of them possesses (with one glaring exception in that I have only spent a few minutes with MGS4).  Both the Wii and the PS3 have some truly groundbreaking and brilliant games.  But what IGN is doing is recognising that from a gaming perspective, the Xbox 360 simply has more of them.  I loved Valkyria Chronicles, I loved inFamous, and to a lessor extent I thought Uncharted was great.  I loved SMG, I loved Mario Kart, and to a lessor extent thought Super Smash Brothers Brawl was great.

But the Xbox 360 simply has a longer list of games that are lovable or great for your average hardcore gamer.  It also has innovations that the gamer prefers.  You can argue till you're blue in the face about things like exclusives and what not, but the fact remains that at the point this list was made anyone wanting a next-generation experience with as many great games as possible has to jump in to an Xbox 360.  The IGN list doesn't ignore the existence of a casual market.  That is why the Wii is so high up the list despite offering less excellent games than many other contendors.  IGN is recognising what Nintendo has done for the market.  But people who wish to argue from a gaming perspective (like IGN), need to remember not to overstate the importance of things like Blu-Ray, or motion control and focus on games.  These two things are only significant insofar as they can benefit games, which so far is very little.  If Natal doesn't benefit games, it too will have no bearing on these sorts of lists.

It is very hard to understand for someone who hasn't owned an Xbox 360 and spent some serious time with it.  I understand that all you would then hear about is hardware failures and a system that sounds as though it is a Jet Fighter taking off.  But IGN understands, as do most Xbox 360 owners, that there is simply an enormous library of astounding games for the console that doesn't seem to end, and that that counts for something.  Neither of the other two consoles have quite gotten to that point of critical mass in terms of quality yet.

I can also understand why Playstation versus Xbox 360 was a tough call for IGN.  Both brought massive innovation to the industry.  Though not inventing CD's for consoles, Playstation took them mainstream.  Though not inventing internet for consoles, Xbox 360 took it mainstream.  But games wise if you look at a website like Metacritic, you'll find the Xbox 360 is fast catching the Playstation in terms of the number of high quality games available.  It has done so with a quarter of the userbase and less than half the active market time.

This list is no reason to attack IGN's credibility.  For people who have only owned Sony or Nintendo consoles their whole lives, it is understandably easy to forget that Microsoft has an amazing, cheap, high-quality GAMES console out there.  But it is out there, it is amazing, it is diverse, and it is currently the best games console of this generation.

 

Edit:  The thread is question can be found here.



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Around the Network

what makes did the
Intellivision
TurboGrafx-16
Colecovision

do for gaming to make it better than the PS3 and Gamecube?



Watch IGN's explanation's rather than simply looking at the list. Innovation was a part of it, but only innovation that benefited games.

The Turbografix had some AWESOME games.



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Personally, I was mostly pissed about the Gamecube being so ridiculously low. I'm fine with the Wii's position, even though I don't agree with it.



I am currently sigless.

besides 360 being higher than ps1, the list was pretty decent.



 

 

 

 

Around the Network

Eh. I gotta disagree. At the end of the day... the 360 doesn't do much different then anyone else.

It was the first with Live. But online was a forgone conclusion.

It would be like giving the Sega Saturn a lot of credit for bringing things 3D.

It's not innovative and it doesn't touch the PS2s library.

In all honesty the original Xbox deserves to be above it because of Madden Nation. (First Madden Nation being on the original Xbox i believe)


Madden Nation being the first game TV show in the US... and a popular one at that.

(Game TV show as in your basically watching people play the game as a competition.)

 

I think it's just a cast of "modernisim".  Thinking what's new is what's best... that and usual biases these websites have.  (not particularly towards 360 but towards certain styles and genres.)



I am a fan of IGN but in all honesty, their whole idea of having a best consoles ever list is pretty silly. Sure there may have been some breakthrough innovations on some of the old machines from 70's and 80's, but to think that people would rather play any of those systems than the current ones is ridiculous (not that they are claiming it as such). Every generation improves, often dramatically, on the previous one, so to say some of the old machines are better than the current ones makes no sense.



 



Mojo said:
I am a fan of IGN but in all honesty, their whole idea of having a best consoles ever list is pretty silly. Sure there may have been some breakthrough innovations on some of the old machines from 70's and 80's, but to think that people would rather play any of those systems than the current ones is ridiculous (not that they are claiming it as such). Every generation improves, often dramatically, on the previous one, so to say some of the old machines are better than the current ones makes no sense.

Uh... no.

I'd still rather pull out an SNES, NES, Balley Astrocade, PS2 or Atari 2600 over a 360 or PS3.

This can actually be backed up by the fact that each of those systems probably has had more time then my 360 or PS3 since i've gotten them.

The SNES and PS2 can be said for the Wii at this point as well.

Advancements in technology don't equal advancements in quality.


I mean hell... were the 3DO, Atari Jaguar or Sega CD a better systems then the NES?  

Hell no.



Well not to bash their opinion but IMO it'll still be PS1>360.


That's one of the most memorable consoles I ever had. I played SNES and a Sega(Saturn or Genesis? I don't remember...) first but didn't want me to own one badly. I just played them at a friends house. But when I played Crash(Forgive me that I was born as kid at that time...) and Twisted Metal that made me wishing for more.

So eventually I begged my parents to give me one as a b-day present. XD

On the 360 part online was the best thing. But still... not that memorable since I played a lot of online games before I even owned a 360. Great games is a given. Every console even the only console I don't own which is the Wii.



Kasz216 said:
Mojo said:
I am a fan of IGN but in all honesty, their whole idea of having a best consoles ever list is pretty silly. Sure there may have been some breakthrough innovations on some of the old machines from 70's and 80's, but to think that people would rather play any of those systems than the current ones is ridiculous (not that they are claiming it as such). Every generation improves, often dramatically, on the previous one, so to say some of the old machines are better than the current ones makes no sense.

Uh... no.

I'd still rather pull out an SNES, NES, Balley Astrocade, PS2 or Atari 2600 over a 360 or PS3.

This can actually be backed up by the fact that each of those systems probably has had more time then my 360 or PS3 since i've gotten them.

The SNES and PS2 can be said for the Wii at this point as well.

Advancements in technology don't equal advancements in quality.


I mean hell... were the 3DO, Atari Jaguar or Sega CD a better systems then the NES?  

Hell no.

I could be wrong but it sounds like you are confusing "games you enjoy more" and "better console". A console is a piece of technology. When the technology is improved, so is the quality. They can simply do more. You may not enjoy playing them as much, but that doesn't make them inferior.