akuma587 said:
IGN is actually one of the most accurate reviewers in terms of getting close in numerical terms to the games metacritic/gamerakings average, although I do admit they aren't the harshest reviewer by any means. That probably goes to Eurogamer, Edge, and Gamespot, but I respect all those publications too. There need to be harsh reviewers. That being said, IGN was one of the first reviewers to give Haze a 5 score and also gave Lair a 5 score, so believe me, they aren't biased. In other news, I agree with the IGN review insofar as what my 7 hours into the game has shown me. This game isn't just epic, its LEGENDARY. I just haven't been able to put the damn thing down. Damn you 8-5 workdays!!! I could be playing Metal Gear Solid 4 right now! |
Actually, that leads me to believe they might be biased more than anything.
It's not only about the high scores. You have to pay attention to the whipping boys of the industry, too. Haze was a bad game. It was. But a 4.5? No way. It had its qualities hidden underneath the lobotomized AI and Uwe Boll-esque dialogue.
When Two Worlds pulls a 6.8 and Haze pulls a 4.5, you know something is wrong. They're almost the exact same game once you factor in genre. Two Worlds is a shitty Oblivion ripoff that has moments where it's actually fun mixed between massive game faults. Haze is a shitty Halo ripoff that has moments where it's actually fun mixed between massive game faults. For some reason, Two Worlds slipped through with mediocre reviews, just as it deserved. Haze, on the other hand, was given the "Lair Label of Doom" and all reviewers jumped on it for some reason.
In short, reviewers are stupid, biased, and terribly inconsistent.
Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/
