ign 5.9

#41MasterVadingPosted 1/11/2013 11:11:15 PM
maiden1993 posted...
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.



What's funny is that he just writes one line then leaves.



_
---
2012-2013 Denver Broncos 13-3
PSN: Menvimacal
#42maiden1993Posted 1/11/2013 11:12:27 PM
MasterVading posted...
maiden1993 posted...
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.



What's funny is that he just writes one line then leaves.



_




...Why should he write more? He doesn't owe us anything.
#43sworderPosted 1/11/2013 11:20:34 PM
maiden1993 posted...
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.


People don't have perfect (or equal) taste. While you may agree with the majority of the reviews posted by one website, you cannot take anyone's word as gospel. You might really like one game that someone else hates. IGN gave Godhand a 3 and some baby game a 7.

If your sole deciding factor about purchasing games is whether or not IGN gives you permission, you are a sheep. Period.
#44HorrorSindicatePosted 1/11/2013 11:22:59 PM
maiden1993 posted...
MasterVading posted...
maiden1993 posted...
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.



What's funny is that he just writes one line then leaves.



_




...Why should he write more? He doesn't owe us anything.


You inferred quite a bit from very limited amount of text. Much of when in context appears delusional.
---
I've seen the future, baby: it is murder
#45Kira0987Posted 1/11/2013 11:26:29 PM
What a load of s***. This game isn't the greatest but it certainly isn't 5.9 material. I guess they weren't bribed enough to give this game a decent score like it deserves. I can't stand video game journalists.
---
Soul of the lost withdrawn from its vessel, let strength be granted so the world might be mended.
PSN - Makohazard
#46CBratePosted 1/11/2013 11:27:21 PM
From: dooms14 | #005
SuddenEmotion posted...
http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/01/11/anarchy-reigns-video-review

Hmm guess ill pass.


Cant tell if this is ignorance or sarcasm.

Well you can't spell ig... nevermind.
---
To all the trolls out there, I have 179 users on my ignore list. Come at me. My list needs to grow...
The latest ignoree: stupid_newbie
#47Mr_FeeshPosted 1/11/2013 11:32:13 PM
maiden1993 posted...
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?


why on earth would anyone trust IGN?
#48necro00Posted 1/11/2013 11:44:02 PM
Lol @ people defending this shallow mediocre game. The best part is it will sell maybe 50k copies and will never have a sequel
#49Honey-BoyPosted 1/11/2013 11:57:41 PM
godhand
zombiu
anarchy reigns
deadly premonition

all are incredibly deep games that ign was intensely wrong about...

lets not forget the games the rated highly that are no where near as great as they claim to be...


ign is hardly the arbiter of quality.

anarchy regns is further proof they dont know what they are talking about.
---
~choose death~
#50DelusioNzorszorPosted 1/12/2013 12:03:20 AM
necro00 posted...
Lol @ people defending this shallow mediocre game. The best part is it will sell maybe 50k copies and will never have a sequel


It sold 70k in japan alone bud and AR is pretty geared toward western audiences with its gigantic breasted women and big burly men.

It'll sell a lot more in the states come another half year, I wouldn't be surprised if it hit 200K copies in the states and europe from all the word of mouth.
---
PSN: FearForDignity