This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.
Former IGN employee admists review scores are skewed due to public relations.
I'm glad to know that GTA IV's reviews were paid. I love rockstar and almost all of its games, but sleeping dogs getting 83 metacritic, and GTA IV getting 98 is just wrong. GTA IV is just not that fun.
I still play it and never get tired of it. Some people just liked it more than others, so I think those reviews were legitimate.
I was a fan and reader of IGN since their humble beginnings. When IGN first started out, their review scores were very different, and much more in line with what you might expect to be honest and true. They gave mediocre games 6s and 7s, and only gave the really good games higher scores.
Things started to change somewhere in the early 2000s, when games had to be really really awful to get anything less than a 7. In fact, at some point they even got rid of all their old reviews, because they did not fall in line with the higher scores they were giving. At that point I knew they had essentially become an advertising site rather than a review site.
You see this happen with quite a few review sites. Once it becomes popular and more powerful and, influential, for lack of a better word. The industry gets it's grubby little hands on it and transforms it into yet another abomination of lies and deceit. The latest casualty of this practice that comes to mind is the site Operation Sports, a site that reviews sports games and hosts a much frequented forum for discussing games.
This is not anything new in the publishing industry, it's just been blown up into greater proportions, relative to the size that the gaming industry has become. You don't have to dig very far into your history books to see similar undertakings.
Since the birth of the internet though, things have only gotten worse. Even so called fan sites are now flooded with undercover marketers, people disguising themselves as "normal" gamers, when in reality they are working for publishers with the intent of trying to sway public opinion. Yes, there are people who actually do this for a living, as shocking and disgusting as that may sound. There's probably one of them reading this right now.
Fortunately the internet has also provided gamers with other outlets, ones that provide more trustworthy information regarding games. Places like youtube where you can view videos, or social sites where you can hear from people you actually know. And yes, there are still review sites that provide critical and in depth analysis of games, for the benefit of truth and not any publisher. If you pay even the slightest bit of attention, you can usually discern one from the other.
Any publisher worth his salt will also know there is a fine line to be walked. Cross that line and they are only doing themselves a disservice. Focus instead on the quality of your own product, then combine that with some good old fashioned salesmanship, and the rest will take care of itself.
it definately happened when they called zelda skyward sword the best zelda, more like the worst zelda.
You're kidding, right? Sure, it may not be the best, but it's far from the worst.
Conduit 2 FC: 0562-2516-9316 Hawke
a zombie, after being killed will turn into a Crimson Head. Crimson Heads turn into Lickers. Lickers turn into Edward18.
Well they definitely bought into the Diablo 3 hype - and we all know how that turned out
Flanders - I think we hit something
Homer - I hope it was Flanders
And I can guess witch other sites do this too.
IGN, Gamespot, Destructoid, Gamepro, and some others that I can't remember at the moment.
I no longer trust these sites because their so called reviews have been laughable & obviously faked.
And this is news? Most reviewers aren't gamers, just lazy a-holes that couldn't make it as a real journalist. They only play 6-8 hours of said game, and they do whatever the high up's say to do. It's been proven time and time again how little they know...yet, Websites like this one still quote these losers as if their opinion means something...
They're are some websites with legitimate reviews [cvg and escapist come to mind] the rest are people looking for hits...Nothing more, nothing less...and those are the people *gamers tend to believe.
PSN: VideoGameCzar l XBL: VideoGameCzar l Steam: TheVideoGameCzar
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH!!! YES!!!! YES!!!! GET SCREWED REVIEWERS! Muahahahahha!!!!
"GameFAQs is a giant MMO text adventure." - Clarifinatious
"I've beat it twice." - TheLichLord
From: Nicodimus | #026
This has been going on since the days of Nintendo Power. No, I'm not kidding. Did you EVER see a brutal review on a horrible game in that magazine?
This by a mile. I had a subscription to them from 1997 to 1999, and one thing stood out in terms of low reviews. Their lowest reviewed N64 game got a 4.7 out of 10, and somehow, it wasn't Superman 64 (which got a 4.9 in its review); it wound up being MK Mythologies: Sub Zero (which wasn't good by any means either, but still).
On the other subjects at hand...
- RE6 is better than Gamespot's review says, but not as good as IGN said it was.
- Grand Theft Auto IV sucked ass; it was the only GTA I didn't want to finish.
The photograph reflects, every streetlight a reminder; nightswimming deserves a quiet night
I just left a post on IGN about this. IGN posted a report saying EA sells the same games over reskinned. I completely remember IGN running a anti-EA hate campaign and I DEFINITELY remember Jessica Chobit in Mass Effect 3. Either EA stumped them on their brag fee or IGN finally snapped into sense about how horrible EA is to the gaming culture. Gamespot fired an employee for giving Kane & Abel low ratings, Gamepro has been padded by Nintendo for years, and most of the smaller review sites are homebrew sites that rely completely on which company is advertising on their site. And sites like this one and Metacritic are abundant with trolls, so even allowing the "readers" to review a game isn't truthful.
Add user to Ignore List after reporting