An example of how IGN is/can be biased

[Maikeru D. Shinigami]

Here you go:

[Vatanui AKA Pride]

It's the reviewer itself, not the entire site.

[Maikeru D. Shinigami]

Well, the reviewer really shouldn't be reviewing games. How could IGN let someone who doesn't understand a way to review decently, review?

[Vatanui AKA Pride]

The same reason why there are bad critics employed at even highly-credible places like Time Magazine, Pitchfork, and Rolling Stone.

And also why there are incompetents working at every job in the world. Every single one. Rappers, politicians, priests, archaeologists, military officials, you name it.

[Devroux]

Just sounded like she was trashing the game most of the time.

[Maikeru D. Shinigami]

The sad thing is that the pluses she gave the game much further outweigh the downsides. I can understand taking a few tenths of points off for glitches, but they really aren't that bad. The game is repetitious in some ways, but it doesn't feel nearly as stale as the reviewer says it is, especially into the second half of the game. The RPG system could have used more, but it was still a very good system and easy to use. The boss fights are epic and the dungeons are well designed. It only gets better as the game goes along.

[Saiyan]

Very true IGN is terrible.

I take it further though and say all "video game journalism" is completely biased and rigged unless they're fan contributions.

I don't want to sound condescending as I know I'm going to come across as but I can't stand the way there "journalists" present themselves most of the time, especially the IGN ones..."hilary goldstein" (who is a guy btw) comes to mind but I haven't been too that site in years there are dozens more but he had to be the most disgusting.

Also every single reviewer is biased, such as greg miller and his insane mental love for the playstation and sony and the constant articles he would write making fun of the xbox.

I have all consoles but the xbox is my favorite, even if it wasn't it's embarrasing for ign to have those kinds of articles on their site...

Like one example is greg miller's article in which he was completely serious "why achievements suck and trophies rock"

That's just lame, for a random article on a random fansite that would be lame but a million dollar "journalism" website...owned by billion dollar fox...that's just pathetic.

I regret reading this thread, it's entirely true and I'm glad I come across someone who comes out and says it but all the actual hate and disgust I have for IGN has surfaced...I haven't been to that site in years and will never go again. I am glad I had this oppourtunity to state my opinion on them though.

I really could go on and on but I don't want to disrupt the forums with my rant and IGN is really not worth my time, discussion, and thoughts.

Trashing ign for the garbage it is still makes me feel good though.

[Vatanui AKA Pride]

Greg Miller is a Sony fan boy, and will always be.

[Maikeru D. Shinigami]

I still go to IGN, mainly to see what games are coming out and to see some videos.

[Vornmusion]

I'm just going to quote myself from another forum on the subject of major video gaming reviewing businesses because I can't be assed to type it again.

Originally Posted by Vornmusion

The big sites are like that by design. Advertisement of major products will help the inflow of profits to the site with generated site interest via direct or indirect consumer direction, which if you get big enough will convince companies to invest in your site via the plethora of "exclusives" and other like-minded concepts on the site. That in turn generates the goodwill that the site will help sell the product as more people flock to it, thus more companies will push their product on your site, which obviously means more people will go to your site and continue to generate profits. Magazines are the same way. It's a well known and tested process that existed long before video games.

It's all just a big circle of profit generation, it's never been about the original concept; and in the rare cases it might be the cut-throat business of marketing guarantees they won't stay that way for long if they wish to survive and make a realistic profit. All that 'back in the day though...' is toss, like everything the financial aspects were considered long before the benefit of the consumer via the finished product; if it wasn't feasible to make a profit (directly or indirectly) then review sites/magazines wouldn't of been bothered with -- that's business. I think people like to fancy their site/magazine as being above the "evil" of greed, which is an unfortunately sheltered view on the world.

In anycase I've never put faith in official review mediums because of this. They're good for previews of upcoming products and the occasional correctly quoted interviews with people in that field, that's it.

To add, that also applies to badmouthing products and setting the example/standard.

In both regards the publishers and/or developers are as much at fault as the medium in which they've used to advertise the game.

[Wooster]

The problem is she trashes the game(perhaps rightly so) and then her overview does not much her own statements.

Going by the beginning, this game sounds like trash that you shouldn't waste your time on nor spend more than five bucks on.

[BoxHead]

She just compares it to other games.

It's like me calling Ocarina of Time crap because it's not as fun as Skyward Sword.

[Bacon]

Should have seen g4's review of resident evil.

[Shikamaru Nara]

There's not one game review-publishing magazine, YouTube channel, or whatever that doesn't have at least one moron reviewing games. Even GI is bad sometimes. They're clearly biased towards Sony and Microsoft, since that is most of their content.

[Shukketsu]

The same reason why there are bad critics employed at even highly-credible places like Time Magazine, Pitchfork, and Rolling Stone.

And what exactly is that reason?

I recall taking a look at the written review for Darksiders II. If memory serves, it amounted to little more than a comparison to Zelda in which the reviewer clearly favoured the latter. I use IGN on occasion for news purposes; I no longer pay their reviews much attention.

[Maikeru D. Shinigami]

Originally Posted by BoxHead

She just compares it to other games.

It's like me calling Ocarina of Time crap because it's not as fun as Skyward Sword.

Yeah, but she's basically taking off 2.5 points because it's not 'as good' as other games. Kind of steep if you ask me.

Also, those +s at the end, outweight the -s by a pretty large margin. She says the gameplay, bosses and loot system are fun. Then takes off 2.5 points for a couple glitches (which every game has) and repetitiveness, which is easy to deal with because of the gameplay.

I'm just saying, this game isn't 2 points worse than God of War or Legend of Zelda.

[Vornmusion]

Number rating systems are worthless anyway. Pros and cons are decent, they're all you need, a number implies there's a universal scale which gives the numbers weight (and definitively not the reviewers inflated self importance). That other review businesses rate a game differently already negates the point of a number rating system in the first place.

Just a gimmick to appease the lazy and a marketing tactic abused by publishers.

[Vornmusion]

Just gonna leave this here because I found it again and thought it fitting

[BMC1994]

You should see their Mw3 and BO2 review that guy is biased as ****

And why does this reviewer feel the need to trash the game if she liekd it. I mean nearly every one of her sentences had a 'but' in it. Dislaike a game sure thats okay but throw some more variation in your words.

[Hidden Ninja45]

IGN is one of the most biased video game review sites out there. They got Halo 4 and Assassin's Creed 3 reviews right, and that was a miracle. A bunch of other game reviews i've seen from them are opinionated and pretty much the opposite of half a dozen other reviews i've read about the same game.