I totally agree dude. Ign reviews make NO SENSE. First im going to go with some reviews they have given just as a few examples. First how about their Metroid Prime 3 review. They gave it a 9.5 but they said it was the best one in the series and the first one got a 9.8. They also said it had the best FPS controls ever and the best wii graphics to date. They will not give sequels as good a score as their predecessors, even if they say it was better. Wouldn't a game have to get a better score if it is a better game? Look at Halo 3, a 9.5 as well, but they claim it to be as good as the other 2 if not better. And how about Smash brother brawl. They said it is the best in the series and they gave it a 9.5 and they gave melee a 9.6. I hate their reviews. Another gripe is that Matt Cassimasina and Bozon rip wii games and hold them to a graphical standard as the 360 or ps3 which isnt fair. I also quit going to gamespot after their metroid prime 3 review of an 8.5, they also gave legend of zelda twilight princess a 8.8 (which is considered to be one of the greatest games of all time by many). I strongly disagree reviews because they mislead people to think games arent as good as they are, or even their predecessors. I know 9.5 is a great score but if you say a game is better than a game that has a better score, wouldnt you have to give that game a better score. PS3 and 360 fans just wait and see when Grand Theft Auto 4 comes out, San Andreas got a 9.9, now they will probably claim Grand Theft Auto 4 will be better than San Andreas but they probably will not give it a better score or even a equal score.Maybe they set the bar too high before but it's not fair to new games coming out, they need to clarify some things. I know it is all opinions and i can respect that, but in my opinion that just doest make sense.

 The same person doesn't always review these games.  IGN's reviews usually make the most sense out of any reviewer, IMO.

lyricsforce24 said:
I totally agree dude. Ign reviews make NO SENSE. First im going to go with some reviews they have given just as a few examples. First how about their Metroid Prime 3 review. They gave it a 9.5 but they said it was the best one in the series and the first one got a 9.8. They also said it had the best FPS controls ever and the best wii graphics to date. They will not give sequels as good a score as their predecessors, even if they say it was better. Wouldn't a game have to get a better score if it is a better game? Look at Halo 3, a 9.5 as well, but they claim it to be as good as the other 2 if not better. And how about Smash brother brawl. They said it is the best in the series and they gave it a 9.5 and they gave melee a 9.6. I hate their reviews. Another gripe is that Matt Cassimasina and Bozon rip wii games and hold them to a graphical standard as the 360 or ps3 which isnt fair. I also quit going to gamespot after their metroid prime 3 review of an 8.5, they also gave legend of zelda twilight princess a 8.8 (which is considered to be one of the greatest games of all time by many). I strongly disagree reviews because they mislead people to think games arent as good as they are, or even their predecessors. I know 9.5 is a great score but if you say a game is better than a game that has a better score, wouldnt you have to give that game a better score. PS3 and 360 fans just wait and see when Grand Theft Auto 4 comes out, San Andreas got a 9.9, now they will probably claim Grand Theft Auto 4 will be better than San Andreas but they probably will not give it a better score or even a equal score. I know it is all opinions and i can respect that, but in my opinion that just doest make sense.

The same person doesn't always review these games. IGN's reviews usually make the most sense out of any reviewer, IMO.





Thats cool. I respectfully disagree though. I just know the ones who reviewed the wii games are the same guys and im not sure about the 360 games i mentioned. Have you ever listened to gametrailers reviews? I like them pretty well, i think they are pretty thorough and strict with their reviews. I dont think they have given a game a perfect ten before, maybe, but i am not sure.

Lyricsforce24 IGN has more than one reviewer each channel. One of the guys for the IGN Wii channel wasn't with IGN when MP1 was released. That stated, I find all reviews utterly useless. If a game is a new IP it gets screwed and known IPs are usually scored to highly. The last straw for me with reviews was Lost Odyssey. That game has been pretty much underscored by all western reviewers and the Gamespy reviewer should be fired for incompetence.

What's that old saying? You can't spell ignorant without IGN?

Yeah, it's best to not listen to any site that gives credence to numeric scores over listing the game's strengths, weaknesses, and target audience.

I used to only watch out for IGN reviews but lately I use Metacritic more than anything. I read every summary of each review, see what strengths and what weaknesses come out most for the game and then I pretty much know if it's a game worth purchasing.

I'm not surprised that Gamespot gave the game only 8.5. They give R&C 7.5 and Uncharted 8. So I have to say, it's pretty high for a Sony title.

After the disgrace with Kane & Lynch, I no longer consider gamespot a respectable website.

Much lower scores than the average
R&C=7.5
Uncharted=8.0 (this would be an AAA average if gamespot gave it a deserved 9.0)
It is currently at 89.8 (soo close)

and now GOW psp=8.5 (that hurt its average down to 93.4)

The only individual reviewer I pay any attention to is IGN. But usually I just use Metacritic or Gamerankings.

Lyricsforce24 IGN has more than one reviewer each channel. One of the guys for the IGN Wii channel wasn't with IGN when MP1 was released. That stated, I find all reviews utterly useless. If a game is a new IP it gets screwed and known IPs are usually scored to highly. The last straw for me with reviews was Lost Odyssey. That game has been pretty much underscored by all western reviewers and the Gamespy reviewer should be fired for incompetence.

Darc Requium....I know IGN has more than one reviewer. I was stating that as a whole, for every game system website on ign...ps3, 360. wii, ds, psp, ds, etc, they review sequels, even when they say they are better, with a lower review score than first game released. I believe they need to address that better because it does not make sense. If a game is better it deserves a better review score, even if it is a different reviewer, in my opinion and i understand that is also debatable because of different reviewers. I dont remember Bozon being with IGN at the release of Metroid Prime , but Matt Cassimassina was even though he didnt review the first metroid prime game, and he is one of the top dog for ign Wii. I dont like the games reviews he has given because he just seems to be with silly nitpicking that knocks the scores down lower than it realy should be, IMO. I was basically just agreeing with the guy who started this thread that i did not like most game reviewer scores, especially of a game i really enjoy that i feel that deserves better. You probably understand where i am coming from with your displeasement with the Lost Odyssey review score. I think it sucks that those websites get so much attention and so many people see only their review scores and they assume it was a bad game. Remember IGN's assassins creed score was also a highly debatable low score.