IGN Reviews Sonic & the Black Knight (Ruh Roh!)

[--OkeyDokey--]

Zucas said:

MontanaHatchet said:
Ehh. I was going to say things similar to what Gameboy is saying but I think he has it covered. I'm sure IGN isn't worried. It's fairly likely that the next time they give a Wii exclusive a high score, no one will be complaining about things like the author using the word "retarded" in the review. Seriously, what a minor thing to complain about.

And so what if the score is so low? Would it make much of a difference if the score was some other random number, like 4.8 or 5.2? The game would still be "meh," at best. These days, with dozens of high quality games coming out, who wants to buy below average games anyways? I'm struggling to finish old games and balance new ones like Killzone 2 and No More Heroes (the former is a planned purchase, the latter having already been purchased).

I realize that a lot of die-hard fanboys were excited for this title, and that's fine. But so far I've only heard two reviews (an 8/10 from Nintendo Power and this score from IGN). So, which should I trust more? Nintendo Power reviewing a Wii exclusive or IGN? I'm sure IGN has so oh-so-terrible bias against the Wii, or just this random reviewer.

Meh.

It's not even about that.  It's about reviewing a game on the basis of what the "reviewer thinks it should be" rather than what it is.  Matt did the exact same thing for Wii Music.  It was reviewed on that same basis.

I really could care less what they gave the score of.  What i look for is a game reviewed on its own merits.  Imagine if a Wii shooter was graded poorly in graphics because it was in comparison to say Crysis.  It's not a fair realization.  Wii Music shouldn't have been reviewed on the basis of what Guitar Hero and Rock Band are.  Sonic and the Black Knight shouldn't be reviewed on the basis of what Matt thinks should be an ideal Sonic game. 

Personal opinion is part of the review but if the game works, then it shouldn't get piss poor reviews.  A sign of that in this review was in his portion of the gameplay.  He states:

"Gameplay
Possibly designed by monkeys. Everything you've ever liked about Sonic games -- speed, great level designs -- is gone. Instead, you will crawl through stages and fight enemy after enemy, with waggle"

It got a 3.0 but the game wasn't tryign to be an old school fast paced Sonic in no way whatsoever.  Yet it wasn't graded on what it did have but what he thought it should have.  That is unprofessional and the complete opposite of what a review is. 

That is what I have a problem with in this review.  The game isn't reviewed on the merits of the game.  It is reviewed on outside and preexisting biases and predeterminations.   For the most part a game should be reviewed in its own class only stepping outside to talk about how it relates to others in the genre and/or series.  Stating how a game should be when it clearly isn't is wrong.  From this review, nobody will ever have any idea what this game offered.  Only thing we do see is Matt having a hissy fit.  Imagine if Killzone 2, all you Sony fan's beloved savior, was reviewed poorly because of how it doesn't use the same setup as the traditional shooter like Halo.  Point should be well taken.

 

Or... it's just a bad game.