oniyide on 24 October 2011
| Michael-5 said: Don't hate me, but I disagree with IGN's review. I think IGN give high profile games higher ratings then they deserve because it will draw more fans to their website. The reason I say this is that multiple times in the video review, he says that multiplayer isn't perfect. He said it's a big improvement over UC2 and addictive as hell, but I've played the beta, multiplayer is average. I think the game should have gotten a 9.5/10, like it did on GameTrailers. GT seem to give more reasonable review scores now days. IGN has changed. 3 games this gen got a 10/10 already, and before that Ocarina of Time was the only one. Too much personal preference goes into IGN's reviews. As good as the story may be, Multiplayer is average compared to the competition. This may be an amazing game single player game, but lasting appeal should not be a 10, and overall score should not be a 10. No game, except maybe something very very well made with a very broad audience, and great replay should get a 10. The 10/10 list should be limited to GTAIV and Ocarina of Time. Disagree? Did GT5 deserve an 8.5/10? GT gave it 9/10. They are far more reasonable when it comes to scores IMHO. |
I agree with you on IGN, i remember way back in the 32bit era they were MUCH more brutal, if they gave a game a 8or 9, you bet it was worth your time. But why do you feel GTA4 and OOT deserve 10s and not U3??? You played the beta and that was just beta, for a we know they could have changed it up for launch and you didnt even touch SP, for all we know it has a better campaign than 2. OOT had no replay, its a straight SP game, why is that a ten?? GTA4, IMHO the story was boring as hell, alot of the side missions you used to do were taking out and lets be honest, how much people actually play the Multiplayer?? Its a damn ghost town when I go on. Im not trying to be a dick, just curious
