By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - So ..... do you guys still trust IGN?

ishiki on 25 November 2010
Killiana1a said:

Trust? No. Read to get an opinion on a game? Yes. Same goes for any online review site.

The problem I have with the likes of Gamespot and IGN is their changing standards. When Far Cry 2 came out back in October 2008, it had game breaking bugs where all your save files would become corrupted forcing you to restart. They patched it about 3 weeks in and it was playable.

Now what did IGN and Gamespot score Far Cry 2 at? 8.8 and 8.5 respectively, seemingly glossing over the corrupt save game issue.

Fast forward two years to the release of Fallout: New Vegas and Fable 3. What did IGN and Gamespot score them? 7.5 and 8.5 (Fallout: New Vegas) and 7.5 and 8.5 (Fable 3). Why did they not score as high as a just as bugged game called Far Cry 2?

Changing review standards.

This is why I cannot trust any online gaming review site because they nitpick over the insignificant (bugs, gameplay menus, and on) while not giving enough due credit to the significant (story, gameplay and replay value).

well, fallout New Vegas is buggier than Far Cry 2 was launched... atleast for me on PC

but my save file didn't get corrupted  in FC2 (PC version atleast).
But I'd give Farcry 2 a 7 anyways.
And New Vegas Higher (haven't beatenit yet) not that anything I said is  relevant to your point..



Around the Network
PullusPardus on 25 November 2010
ishiki said:
PullusPardus said:
darthdevidem01 said:
Boutros said:

They changed a lot in the past few months. I really did see a shift in their way of handling reviews and giving scores.

I used to fully trust them but I realized I shouldn't.

I don't agree with a lot of things they do but I still think they are trying to be helpful.

I agree with Boutros

I used to trust them so much but some antics in the last few months has lowered that trust

@Pullus Pardus

GTA4 was full of content and wasn't crap, just very disappointing.

Not Sure if serious >_>

Lots of fun stuff was taken off from San Andreas just to up the graphics

it felt like its GTA 3 rather than an upgrade from San Andreas, even the mission design was basic.


if they would have made the graphics any worse they should have just made it on ps2 again :P.

really though, same thing with morrowind-->oblivion was done, stuff was taken out. And they added more polish (for better or for worse... and too the extent)

But nvm both of those games were dissapointing to me, but not to darth XD

edit: severance go back to severance. I seemed to agree more with him haha


Thats why i like Morrowind better myself, Oblivion felt like a test to them to check how their games would look in HD and with a new engine =[, thats mainly why i am looking for a new Elder Scrolls, it got a huge potential.

and most of all, JUST ADD MORE VOICE ACTORS PLEASE!!!! its as if the game only have 4 voice actors (i might not be far from the truth!)



Grandia on 25 November 2010

GT5 is a disaster, 6 years in development, it cost 60 Million Dollar and GT5 is still unfinished. GT5 got what it deserve deal with it.



PullusPardus on 25 November 2010
ishiki said:
Killiana1a said:

Trust? No. Read to get an opinion on a game? Yes. Same goes for any online review site.

The problem I have with the likes of Gamespot and IGN is their changing standards. When Far Cry 2 came out back in October 2008, it had game breaking bugs where all your save files would become corrupted forcing you to restart. They patched it about 3 weeks in and it was playable.

Now what did IGN and Gamespot score Far Cry 2 at? 8.8 and 8.5 respectively, seemingly glossing over the corrupt save game issue.

Fast forward two years to the release of Fallout: New Vegas and Fable 3. What did IGN and Gamespot score them? 7.5 and 8.5 (Fallout: New Vegas) and 7.5 and 8.5 (Fable 3). Why did they not score as high as a just as bugged game called Far Cry 2?

Changing review standards.

This is why I cannot trust any online gaming review site because they nitpick over the insignificant (bugs, gameplay menus, and on) while not giving enough due credit to the significant (story, gameplay and replay value).

well, fallout New Vegas is buggier than Far Cry 2 was launched... atleast for me on PC

but my save file didn't get corrupted  in FC2 (PC version atleast).
But I'd give Farcry 2 a 7 anyways.
And New Vegas Higher (haven't beatenit yet) not that this is relevant.

i didn't have that game breaking bug as well, but to me FC2 wasn't very good, it had a great idea and great potential but was very repetitive and had lots of emptiness.



PullusPardus on 25 November 2010
Grandia said:

GT5 is a disaster, 6 years in development, it cost 60 Million Dollar and GT5 is still unfinished. GT5 got what it deserve deal with it.


do i have to explain every time, or don't you guys even bother reading the very first line in the OP ?



Around the Network
Faxanadu on 25 November 2010
PullusPardus said:
Grandia said:

GT5 is a disaster, 6 years in development, it cost 60 Million Dollar and GT5 is still unfinished. GT5 got what it deserve deal with it.


do i have to explain every time, or don't you guys even bother reading the very first line in the OP ?

It's just that you are talking only about GT5.

We all know it. Stop lying to yourself.



Any message from Faxanadu is written in good faith but shall neither be binding nor construed as constituting a commitment by Faxanadu except where provided for in a written agreement signed by an authorized representative of Faxanadu. This message is intended for the use of the forum members only.

The views expressed here may be personal and/or offensive and are not necessarily the views of Faxanadu.

darthdevidem01 on 25 November 2010
PullusPardus said:
darthdevidem01 said:
Boutros said:

They changed a lot in the past few months. I really did see a shift in their way of handling reviews and giving scores.

I used to fully trust them but I realized I shouldn't.

I don't agree with a lot of things they do but I still think they are trying to be helpful.

I agree with Boutros

I used to trust them so much but some antics in the last few months has lowered that trust

@Pullus Pardus

GTA4 was full of content and wasn't crap, just very disappointing.

Not Sure if serious >_>

Lots of fun stuff was taken off from San Andreas just to up the graphics

it felt like its GTA 3 rather than an upgrade from San Andreas, even the mission design was basic.

Yes stuff was taken out from GTA:SA

But it still had lots of content and stuff to do and isn't 1% as bad as you said in the OP.

The Mission design wasn't that basic and the decisions you make at the end of some missions was a good addition.

GTA:SA is one of the best games ever...GTA4 is a average game....not a terrible one though.



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

Killiana1a on 25 November 2010
ishiki said:
Killiana1a said:

Trust? No. Read to get an opinion on a game? Yes. Same goes for any online review site.

The problem I have with the likes of Gamespot and IGN is their changing standards. When Far Cry 2 came out back in October 2008, it had game breaking bugs where all your save files would become corrupted forcing you to restart. They patched it about 3 weeks in and it was playable.

Now what did IGN and Gamespot score Far Cry 2 at? 8.8 and 8.5 respectively, seemingly glossing over the corrupt save game issue.

Fast forward two years to the release of Fallout: New Vegas and Fable 3. What did IGN and Gamespot score them? 7.5 and 8.5 (Fallout: New Vegas) and 7.5 and 8.5 (Fable 3). Why did they not score as high as a just as bugged game called Far Cry 2?

Changing review standards.

This is why I cannot trust any online gaming review site because they nitpick over the insignificant (bugs, gameplay menus, and on) while not giving enough due credit to the significant (story, gameplay and replay value).

well, fallout New Vegas is buggier than Far Cry 2 was launched... atleast for me on PC

but my save file didn't get corrupted  in FC2 (PC version atleast).
But I'd give Farcry 2 a 7 anyways.
And New Vegas Higher (haven't beatenit yet) not that anything I said is  relevant to your point..

I bring up the issue of bugs because back in the day (1990s and early 2000s), it was expected for PC games to have bugs. PC Gamer magazine expected this and did not downgrade them like Gamespot does nowadays. As for console gaming, the expectation has always been a finished, perfectly polished product.

However, when the platform for consoles is becoming more and more similar to PC gaming minus the keyboard, work apps, and Internet browsing, then should this not be taken into account by reviewers?

I think it should because the open platform of Live and PSN allow for gaming devs to add to and patch games to an extent where they are far better 2 months out than at release. The easy and most justified route is to blame the developer for caving to internal and publisher demands to rush out a product before it is polished. The harder route, which I mentioned above takes into account that as the console generations increase, consoles become more and more PC like, thus they should be held to a different standard than the Nintendo Seal of Quality standard norm.

The expectation of a Nintendo Seal of Quality product for all console games is a tad high nowadays considering the technology. Just my opinion.



Killiana1a on 25 November 2010
PullusPardus said:
ishiki said:
Killiana1a said:

Trust? No. Read to get an opinion on a game? Yes. Same goes for any online review site.

The problem I have with the likes of Gamespot and IGN is their changing standards. When Far Cry 2 came out back in October 2008, it had game breaking bugs where all your save files would become corrupted forcing you to restart. They patched it about 3 weeks in and it was playable.

Now what did IGN and Gamespot score Far Cry 2 at? 8.8 and 8.5 respectively, seemingly glossing over the corrupt save game issue.

Fast forward two years to the release of Fallout: New Vegas and Fable 3. What did IGN and Gamespot score them? 7.5 and 8.5 (Fallout: New Vegas) and 7.5 and 8.5 (Fable 3). Why did they not score as high as a just as bugged game called Far Cry 2?

Changing review standards.

This is why I cannot trust any online gaming review site because they nitpick over the insignificant (bugs, gameplay menus, and on) while not giving enough due credit to the significant (story, gameplay and replay value).

well, fallout New Vegas is buggier than Far Cry 2 was launched... atleast for me on PC

but my save file didn't get corrupted  in FC2 (PC version atleast).
But I'd give Farcry 2 a 7 anyways.
And New Vegas Higher (haven't beatenit yet) not that this is relevant.

i didn't have that game breaking bug as well, but to me FC2 wasn't very good, it had a great idea and great potential but was very repetitive and had lots of emptiness.

I loved Far Cry 2 and still have not seen a game visually create fire as it has. That being said, it is far below Far Cry in the awesome department.



Siko1989 on 25 November 2010

i have never been a review whore but i watch them to see what they say about the game even though i am gonna buy it anyway