Resistance 2 will get higher metacritic score than Gears of war 2!

[ZenfoldorVGI]

polezo said:

ZenfoldorVGI said:

1. Opinions are invalide when they aren't opinions, but assumptions. If some one has never played either game, they don't have an opinion about the, they have an assumption. In your example, if you said Oblivion and God of War are just as good, but you had never played Oblivion, then that would be an assumption. Invalid.

2. Hell yes, I believe IGN tied these games on purpose. Maybe to be fair and balanced, maybe because the teams made a deal with each other, so they wouldn't over-rate, but yes. There are a million reasons to tie it, and none to name a winner, because it would do nothing but get a large mob of fanboys with assumptions to discredit them. If the games were close, I have no doubt that it was debated on how to score them against each other. IGN doesnt' use an averaging system. The reviewers could give those games any final scores they wanted. You think those scores weren't even discussed before they were posted? Most people realize that this was probably(but unprovably) a cop-out by IGN. The motives are obvious, and real. You sir, are naive if you believe that is impossible.

3. All reviews are opinion. Facts and bullet points mean nothing. Reviewers don't score games based on the positives and negatives you can come up with. Giving that information in a review is fine. The important thing is if the game came together in a cohesive and immersive package. That, my friend, is all a score means. An opinion. A critic without an opinion is like a carpenter without a hammer. Being able to look past ones own opinion and score a game based on what general fans of the games opinion would be, is what Famitsu does. Nobody is ever completely unbiased, and attempting such will inevitably lead to misratings of games by overcompensation.

 

I really dont think they lined the scores up just to stop arguments/please fanboys. IGN has more integrity than people give them credit for, and strictly speaking it is only ONE reviewer who comes up with the score for a game.  In fact, you often hear editors calling each other out because of this--Matt Cassamasina of IGN Wii said there is no way he would have given either MSG4 or GTAIV a 10 if he had been reviewing them, but he still respects the other reviewers opinions.  I also hear them making fun of the UK and AU reviews frequently.

They're pretty up front about answering questions about their review process as well and each team (the Playstation, Xbox,  and Nintendo teams) has their own dedicated network to do so.

Now, I'm not saying that they dont influence eachother by any means, but the only time they actually get together and have look at all the games across platforms together, is when they're voting for the end of year awards and GOTY. 

All that said, I'll give you one caveat.  Nuts and Bolts is coming in with a lot of hype and is a creative platformer similar to LBP in some ways (and looked upon by fanboys in a similar light, at least)... if IGN gives it the EXACT same score as Little Big Planet, it will give your suspiscion some clout. 

 

Well, your integrity argument is very valid, and I respect it. I just thought that you didn't believe it could ever happen. I think the PS3 and 360 teams are next door to each other, and I guarntee it was discussed, but wheather either score was changed, or it was a conincidence, is just indeterminable.

As for the Nuts and Planet comparison, I don't think it'll hold water either way. Those aren't two games you could tie without controversy, and they are also released at two different times, and have differing amounts of hype amongst the communities.