ign 5.9

#31megasoniczxxPosted 1/11/2013 11:17:43 PM
NLScavenger posted...
The same site that gave God Hand a 3/10 and Deadly Premonition a 2/10....


and gave the imaginebaby game a 7, where has the world gone?
#32sworderPosted 1/11/2013 11:31:37 PM
IGN UK and IGN AUS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGN US
#33Robo_Deer_KingPosted 1/11/2013 11:38:05 PM
HorrorSindicate posted...
That's pretty close to how I would rate IGN too. I think it is a bit too high but I guess the site has a lot of content


So much win in this post! XD
#34liltaggPosted 1/11/2013 11:45:24 PM
MGSPhantomPain posted...
Wow and in the gametrailers review they blatantly lie and say the cutscenes and dialog are unskippable. You can hit select to skip anything. They are a buncha ****ing sellout jokes of "journalists"

~blankly stares at camera and tells people to buy GMO laced doritos and mountain dew~

Seriously, **** gaming journalists.


I never tried to skip the actual animated cutscenes, but I tried multiple times, hitting every button, to skip through some of those face-to-face dialogue scenes, and none of it worked.

Maybe that changes after you've already beaten the campaign once, as I've yet to go through both sides, but the first time it's definitely true.
---
http://i.minus.com/i6KFWnapcCjuP.gif
#35maiden1993Posted 1/11/2013 11:46:48 PM
MGSPhantomPain posted...
maiden1993 posted...
Rags_2_Riches posted...
Ugh don't feed thr troll. Notice how he hasn't posted at all since he made the topic.


What troll? The T.C?

Because IGN giving the game a low score is a fact, not an attempt at trolling.


I guess you missed the part where he said...

"Hmm guess ill pass."

So he's either a troll, or a complete sheep who can;t think for himself. Either way, he's of low intelligence.



Why, because he won't spend his hard earned cash on a far-from-perfect game that got a bad review from a site he trusts?

Jesus, this community amazes me sometimes.

It's one thing to disagree with the reviewer (something I did on this very discussion), but it's another thing entirely to call someone who isn't interested in this game a "troll".

I like this game a lot, but it's for a VERY specific audience. To insult someone that doesn't belong to that demographic "just because" is not only insane, but extremely immature.
#36Robo_Deer_KingPosted 1/11/2013 11:53:12 PM
liltagg posted...
I never tried to skip the actual animated cutscenes, but I tried multiple times, hitting every button, to skip through some of those face-to-face dialogue scenes, and none of it worked.

Maybe that changes after you've already beaten the campaign once, as I've yet to go through both sides, but the first time it's definitely true.


Press the select button. It takes you right to the fight. You don't need to beat the campaign.
#37squeakthedragonPosted 1/11/2013 11:57:20 PM
Regardless of demographics, this game had little chance of being reviewed on all its merits from IGN. It doesn't have expensive production values in the graphics (which is not the same as having "bad" graphics) and generally speaking, can not be played to full enjoyment in a casual, low-investment manner. Mainstream western sites such as IGN generally review games based on how well they appeal to reviewers with little time to play games for enjoyment - only games that wow with the most expensive presentation and buttery, smooth, edge-free play experience excite them.

The visuals in Anarchy Reigns are well done and very detailed as far as the primary characters go, and they have great animation. This is a brawler focused mostly on the characters. The environments in the game aren't even terrible - they're huge, built with a lot of geometry, but are artificial and "blocky" in part for gameplay purposes. The entire game is very artificial, and very much like a 90s Japanese arcade game.

It's realistic to say the game doesn't have, overall, the expensive production of a western made AAA blockbuster. And to say that it's aimed at a specific audience, who can get into the meat of the game - its multiplayer. It is not by any stretch of the imagination a bad game, or even a mediocre game in the area it is focused on.

This is not QUITE a Godhand situation. The infamous Godhand review was literally poor writing and flippant, by someone who actually could not play the game and didn't even understand what the point of it was. Combined with the fact that in reality Godhand is one of the best action fighting games of all time. Anarchy Reigns is not a legendary tier game like Godhand, but it's still quite good.
#38sworderPosted 1/12/2013 12:00:38 AM(edited)
maiden1993 posted...
Why, because he won't spend his hard earned cash on a far-from-perfect game that got a bad review from a site he trusts?

Jesus, this community amazes me sometimes.

It's one thing to disagree with the reviewer (something I did on this very discussion), but it's another thing entirely to call someone who isn't interested in this game a "troll".

I like this game a lot, but it's for a VERY specific audience. To insult someone that doesn't belong to that demographic "just because" is not only insane, but extremely immature.


It's fine if you read a bunch of reviews and come to your own conclusion. That's why Metacritic exists. But to only buy games because ONE person tells you to do so or not? It's stupid, period.

And the sad thing is that TC is a Sage. His account is from 2002. He's a grown man and still cannot think for himself.
#39maiden1993Posted 1/12/2013 12:04:49 AM
sworder posted...
maiden1993 posted...
Why, because he won't spend his hard earned cash on a far-from-perfect game that got a bad review from a site he trusts?

Jesus, this community amazes me sometimes.

It's one thing to disagree with the reviewer (something I did on this very discussion), but it's another thing entirely to call someone who isn't interested in this game a "troll".

I like this game a lot, but it's for a VERY specific audience. To insult someone that doesn't belong to that demographic "just because" is not only insane, but extremely immature.


It's fine if you read a bunch of reviews and come to your own conclusion. That's why Metacritic exists. But to only buy games because ONE person tells you to do so or not? It's stupid, period.



Not at all.

If a single reviewer you trust faults diverse areas of a game you might be interested in, you can determine how much of a deal breaker those flaws are. If they are there, one trusted reviewer's opinion is all you need.

F.E: I trust Giant Bomb's judgement most of the time (since we tend to agree more often than not), and if the flaws they point out in a game are factual and enough to stop me from buying the game, I'll not buy it.

THAT'S what the review is for.

The TC trusts IGN, and the reviewer pointed out some flaws that bothered him; so he's not getting the game. What's so wrong with that?

...Funny how people are saying that he should come to his own conclusion, only to mercilessly jump on him when he does.
#40fatal_fighterPosted 1/12/2013 12:09:52 AM
huh, that's nice.
*goes back playing Anarchy Reigns*