IGN Review - 8.3

#1 Edited by cann3dheat (230 posts) -

To me, the IGN review seemed to miss a lot of the point of this game. Not only did they have a factual mistake (three minutes in Deadline instead of five), but the entire review was more of an overview of the game rather than a critique of it's parts. It seemed like he played it until he unlocked all the modes, then just dinked around for 20+ minutes.

Maybe it's just the fact that I love this game, but I really think the IGN review is just...off.

Edit: Original Review

#2 Posted by Joker (675 posts) -

I do not take mainstream reviews anymore. Unbiased reviews are so hard to come by nowadays, but I trust the gang here at GiantBomb.

#3 Posted by Monty_The_Great (178 posts) -
Joker said:
"I do not take mainstream reviews anymore. Unbiased reviews are so hard to come by nowadays, but I trust the gang here at GiantBomb.
"
Yes unbiased reviews are hard to come by. But that doesn't mean that I trust GB now because they started a new site. I trust the same reviewer I have trusted my whole life, myself. I normally rent these games before I buy, and if i like them, I buy. This isn't based on any review at all.
#4 Posted by PureRok (4235 posts) -

I know how you feel. All of the reviews bash Tenchu Z (my favorite Tenchu game) when it's not NEARLY as bad as they all claim it to be. I guess some games you just have to "get"... or something.

#5 Posted by Subway (971 posts) -

Most review sites are so inconsistent and biased it's not even funny. I don't even bother looking at most reviews anymore, I'd rather go by word of mouth on forums and follow the reviews from here (since I agree with most of them so far) than go to IGN or Gamespot or Gametrailers.

#6 Posted by Warihay (481 posts) -
#7 Posted by KimFidler (311 posts) -

The problem is that so many sites don't have the time to invest in one title.  It's a little depressing when there are many outlets out there that don't even play a game to completion for a review.  I have done it once in my professional career (I'm not going to state which game), and when that review went live, I felt like I let everyone reading it down.  After that I went back and played the game and realized that my review was still pretty accurate.  Ever since then, there is no way I'll even sit down at the computer without having seen the end credits of any game.  It takes longer, but I'd rather put out a quality piece of work.

I'll be reviewing GeoWars2, but I'm definitely going to be taking my time with it.  Play every mode for a couple of hours and break each one down in terms of playability. 

#8 Edited by Knives (711 posts) -

Sorry, but 8.3 is still a "great" score. How is that not a valid review?

#9 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3746 posts) -
Knives said:

Sorry, but 8.3 is still a "great" score. How is that not a valid review?


It's not the score, it's the review itself.  There are inaccuracies and the guy comes off stating matters of opinion as if they were hard facts that anyone who played the game would agree with.  He also drops this bomb, mind you, in a review on the Xbox Live channel:

"While it's still fun, it's also a game that's more than two years old and is, frankly, inferior to the PlayStation Network's Super Stardust HD."
#10 Posted by Jonathan (654 posts) -

The people that complain about this are the people who complained about Jeff Gerstmann's 8.8 for Zelda TP. 8.3 is a great score and they really liked the game. Thats it.

#11 Posted by Subway (971 posts) -

I hated super stardust, I got no enjoyment out of it. The other duel joystick shooting on PSN was cool, don't know it's name though.

#12 Posted by Hamz (6846 posts) -

IGN doesn't get the nickname IGNorant for nothing. A lot of their reviews are questionable at best if it isn't obvious bias its mistakes with their facts that cast doubt on just how much time the reviewer spent on playing the game, assuming they played the game at all.

#13 Posted by HistoryInRust (6317 posts) -
Hamz said:
"IGN doesn't get the nickname IGNorant for nothing. A lot of their reviews are questionable at best if it isn't obvious bias its mistakes with their facts that cast doubt on just how much time the reviewer spent on playing the game, assuming they played the game at all.
"
Truth.

IGN's writers take all of thirteen seconds to edit their articles and, much like Gamespot, is swamped with multi-media conglomerate advertisements, which is a good way of intuiting that their crew can be skewed to a certain opinion.

Also, their reviews often spoil major plot points/twists if only because their writers are too self-conscious to actually consider the audience.  And when they aren't being serious morons, they are pretentious meatheads -- honestly, read the Bioshock review and tell me if you can not only make sense of their belligerent nonsense, but assume that is a review meant to reach a mass target audience.  

The answer is no.   
#14 Posted by xplodedd (1316 posts) -
Hamz said:
"IGN doesn't get the nickname IGNorant for nothing. A lot of their reviews are questionable at best if it isn't obvious bias its mistakes with their facts that cast doubt on just how much time the reviewer spent on playing the game, assuming they played the game at all."
no truer words could be spoken about IGN
#15 Posted by Manks (836 posts) -
Hamz said:
"IGN doesn't get the nickname IGNorant for nothing. A lot of their reviews are questionable at best if it isn't obvious bias its mistakes with their facts that cast doubt on just how much time the reviewer spent on playing the game, assuming they played the game at all.
"
True that.
#16 Edited by Knives (711 posts) -

Retro 2 isn't exactly innovative or fresh. It's basically Galaxies with HD graphics and a couple new modes.

#17 Posted by cann3dheat (230 posts) -

Knives, but Galaxies wasn't released on the Xbox Live Arcade, so a lot of people haven't had the chance to go out and play it.

#18 Posted by Willy105 (4690 posts) -

I didn't know IGN was IGNorant.

#19 Edited by OlDrtyBstrd (112 posts) -

OK....So right now I would go into a big rant about how IGN is the worst website that has ever existed. Their reviews are totally biased, most highly anticipated games they give high scores to (totally disregarding the actually quality of the product), and all of their editors are satans spawn. However, I will save that for a blog and focus on the Geometry Wars 2 review. So yeah, as stated before, they said that deadline mode is 5 minutes instead of 3, which is a big mistake. Also, like most of their video reviews, the whole video seemed to had a very dissappointed tone, even though it recieved a favorable score. And of course, it would not be an IGN review without some sort of paradoxal, and the IGN review totally delivers with:  "Retro Evolved 1 had a single mode that was deep enough to hold gamers over for a good year. Retro Evolved 2 comes with six modes, in large part because none of them have quite the same level of depth to match the original on their own." So yeah, that "single mode that was deep enough to hold gamers over for a good year" is called Evolved AND IT IS IN GEOMETRY WARS TWO YOU FUCKING DOUCHEBAG! And last but not least there was one thing about this review that really caught my eye. The inconsistency between the video review and the text review. The text review stated that Star Dust HD is better than the one Evolved mode in GW2; however, the video review stated that Star Dust HD was a better game than Geometry Wars 2. Leaving some poor lost soul who actually trusts IGN to buy Star Dust HD instead of Geometry Wars 2, in the circumstance that they only watched the video review. So...with all of these fallacies and mistakes, it almost makes it seemslike IGN totally rushed this review just so they would be able to release it in close proximity of Geometry Wars 2 release...hmmmm

BTW IGN also totally missed the whole point of Geometry Wars 2 LEADERBOARDS. Not once did they mention how freaking adictive online friends leadeboards are in Geometry Wars 2...I don't know maybe thats too opinionated but still...they should have at least mentioned leaderboards





#20 Posted by Riddler (1528 posts) -
who cares what they think.
#21 Posted by MagusMaleficus (1036 posts) -

I don't know... I played the demo, and enjoyed it, but I wouldn't call it a 5/5 based on that. Granted, I would really need to play through the full game to properly review it, but the demo didn't make me want to play through the full game...


Besides, we are talking about somebody's opinion here.
#22 Posted by OlDrtyBstrd (112 posts) -
MagusMaleficus said:
"I don't know... I played the demo, and enjoyed it, but I wouldn't call it a 5/5 based on that. Granted, I would really need to play through the full game to properly review it, but the demo didn't make me want to play through the full game...

Besides, we are talking about somebody's opinion here.
"


Well no...we are talking LIES! Well maybe not lies, because I don't think that there was any intent to decieve their readers into not buying geometry wars 2...but come on! To some (or probably most people) this is a well respected video game website who's information is trusted to be accurate. So they should really take the time to edit their articles.
#23 Posted by Player1 (3869 posts) -
Joker said:
"I do not take mainstream reviews anymore. Unbiased reviews are so hard to come by nowadays, but I trust the gang here at GiantBomb.
"
the best way to find good reviews, is by the users. You just have to make sure the guys not a fanboy that is reviewing 
#24 Posted by pause422 (6188 posts) -

If you absolutely love a game there's no reason you should care about reviews anywhere else,I mean I absolutely love this site,and I know if Jeff or Ryan reviews something,I usually agree with it. But if it happens that I don't,or I think it got to good or bad of a score,it isn't changing my opinion of the game at all, YOUR "review"(opinion) is the only one you should absolutely care about I'd say.

#25 Posted by and333 (842 posts) -

dudes 8.3 is still a great score as long as the games above a 6 or even a 7 its good.

#26 Posted by Bilawal (109 posts) -

IGN are opiniated, but so are every video game websites. It boils down to if they have the same tastes as me then I'll agree, e.g. I have the same tastes as Brad, when he gave the 8.6 to shadow of collosus everyone ranted thats too low but thats how I felt. You need to rent a game to see if it's good, or look at all critic's views.

#27 Posted by jinxman (514 posts) -

obsiously they didn't get paid off for this game =P

#28 Posted by MagusMaleficus (1036 posts) -

You know what? Strike my earlier comment from the records. I gave in and unlocked the full game, and I love it. It is addictive as hell. 8.3 doesn't make much sense to me now either. But, hey, who cares?

#29 Posted by Mo0 (64 posts) -

8.3 is still defined as a "great" game, and that's high enough that if I didn't already know about it, I'd be intrigued and at least get the demo.

Just because you like a game doesn't mean everyone who doesn't give it 10/10 is wrong.

#30 Posted by HydraHam (1338 posts) -

I would of given it an 8.0/10

as for "unbiased" reviews honestly they don't exist, everyone is a little more biased to a certain movie/game then another person besides its just an opinion.. i don't understand why people get up and arms when someone doesn't rate a game the way you want it

#31 Posted by EpicSteve (6487 posts) -

That's very true

#32 Posted by exfate (381 posts) -

What's wrong with the IGN review? 8.3 is a great score, and if you read the text there is a lot of praise in there.

Online
#33 Posted by SoSerious (59 posts) -
exfate said:
"What's wrong with the IGN review? 8.3 is a great score, and if you read the text there is a lot of praise in there.
"

      I think the biggest problem is the factual error. He mentions at least 3 times that the Deadline mode is five minutes long. I think he missed the main difference between this and the first game is that it's more about skill than endurance, and I also disagree that three of the modes are only serviceable but again, that is just opinion.
#34 Posted by seanbooker (205 posts) -

A review is just one persons take on something. No matter what the game, everyone will have some kind of feeling towards it. No ones review is the end all word for the game, it's just something to look out for. In this guy's review on IGN he says that three of the modes aren't good, I would like to point out that Evolved is basically Retro Evolved 1 and yes that's good for people who want that. He may not because he played loads of the first, but he wasn't looking at it from a standpoint of someone new.

Though I do think overall this guy did a very bad job on the review. He didn't go into why Waves was bad at all except "it was in PGR4 and still isn't doing anything for me." Gee thanks! now I know all about Waves and why I shouldn't like it.

#35 Posted by Peter_J (151 posts) -

It's a good score, I would have given higher but everybody's entitled to their own opinion.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.