IGN reviews Minecraft

  • 68 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Banshee (120 posts) -
#2 Posted by yoshimitz707 (2450 posts) -

Your link is broken.

#3 Posted by Video_Game_King (35783 posts) -

I think your link is broken. It's referencing the text of your post, if that makes any sense.

#4 Posted by CL60 (16906 posts) -

Just a heads up, your link leads to a giantbomb.com 404 error.

#5 Posted by ICryCauseImEmo (522 posts) -

Hey just stopping by to tell you your link is broken.

#6 Posted by Witzig (326 posts) -
#7 Posted by spiceninja (3055 posts) -
#8 Posted by ICryCauseImEmo (522 posts) -

Dont get me wrong I enjoy minecraft, but really 8.5 in graphics department? My 13 year old cousin could do better in photoshop....

#9 Posted by Delta_Ass (3246 posts) -

Hey man, your broke is linken.

#10 Posted by jakob187 (21640 posts) -

Reviewing Minecraft is probably one of the most pointless endeavors ever.

#11 Posted by Agent47 (1894 posts) -

@ICryCauseImEmo:Yeah I don't think the presentation is in need of a 5.0 it's not that hard to navigate and it has that 80s style arcade text which I like.But seriously an 8.5 for graphics?I'm still scratching my head but then again it is IGN.So I stop trying to ponder.

#12 Edited by Mikemcn (6936 posts) -

It isn't a perfect 10, what the fuck, i'm going to find out where the reviewer lives and attack him. Next thing you know, Patrick Kleppek is going to give it 4 stars our of 5. Ridiculous.

#13 Posted by PandaBear (1295 posts) -

I don't think Giant Bomb should become a dumping ground for links to reviews on IGN.

This review made me lose all respect for IGN (what as left)... they teased it for ages with videos showing scores Minecraft won't be getting and justified it by saying "this is the final version the developer wants us to play". But as Jeff said on the Bombcast, you can't charge money for a beta. I completely agree... if you charge money you forfeit to right to say it's not complete. By that logic any game could come out with a "version 0.1" sticker on it and be review-proof.

There's nothing wrong with reviewing it I guess... I'd be interested to see other sites take on it. But their whole way of doing it like constantly doling out dumb videos to get extra clicks and gushing all over this new fad just reeks of pandering.

@jakob187: As I said before, Minecraft should be reviewed I think... it's no more pointless than reviewing Little Big Planet or Trackmania. It's telling people "this is a game worth your money".

#14 Posted by mosespippy (3973 posts) -

Why is it that every time IGN posts a review for a blockbuster game someone makes a thread about it? Who gives a shit what IGN things? If we wanted to know what IGN thinks we would be on IGN and not Giantbomb.

#15 Posted by Animasta (14632 posts) -

I thought IGN reviewed games though

#16 Posted by laserbolts (5309 posts) -

I thought the review was fine.

#17 Posted by Banshee (120 posts) -
Sorry about the link guys :(
 
@mosespippy: Well, IGN was the first big sites to review the game..... if another big site reviews it that I follow reviews it, I'll post that one too.
#18 Posted by benpicko (1978 posts) -

@Animasta said:

I thought IGN reviewed games though

Yup. That's what they just did. Well done.

#19 Posted by wefwefasdf (6729 posts) -

@jakob187 said:

Reviewing Minecraft is probably one of the most pointless endeavors ever.

I second that.

#20 Posted by LordXavierBritish (6320 posts) -

This seems unneccesary.

#21 Posted by MikkaQ (10261 posts) -

What an odd game to try and review.

#22 Posted by Tim_the_Corsair (3065 posts) -

8.8!!!

#23 Posted by Marz (5641 posts) -

hmm, i never understood why IGN give individual scores to certain aspects of the game if it doesn't mean anything to the final score.  When you tally up the individual scores and average it out, it only comes out as an 8.1 score.  

#24 Posted by clstirens (847 posts) -

@Marz said:

hmm, i never understood why IGN give individual scores to certain aspects of the game if it doesn't mean anything to the final score. When you tally up the individual scores and average it out, it only comes out as an 8.1 score.

Pretty much. To me, it just helps to emphasize that a score at the end is just a silly distillation of the big picture.

#25 Posted by Redbullet685 (6017 posts) -

Hey man, your link works.

#26 Posted by JoeyRavn (4945 posts) -

@clstirens said:

@Marz said:

hmm, i never understood why IGN give individual scores to certain aspects of the game if it doesn't mean anything to the final score. When you tally up the individual scores and average it out, it only comes out as an 8.1 score.

Pretty much. To me, it just helps to emphasize that a score at the end is just a silly distillation of the big picture.

The hard mathematical score would be an 8.1 if you get the average of the individual scores. A 9 is not that far off, and I think it balances pretty well the weight of each aspect reviewed. Maybe a bad UI or poor on-screen instructions can break an RPG or RTS, but is it really that necessary for Minecraft? I think what the reviewer is trying to say is that 1. Minecraft is better than the sum of its parts 2. its parts are pretty damn good in general and 3. although it has its problems, they don't burden the final product much.

Also, some of the comments on the review are hilariously sad.

#27 Posted by avidwriter (667 posts) -

@jakob187 said:

Reviewing Minecraft is probably one of the most pointless endeavors ever.

+1

#28 Posted by MidgardDragon (152 posts) -

I'm glad for that 9.0 (even a someone who isn't a fan of the toy-box-not-a-game). The way he talked in the lead up it was looking like a 10 and Minecraft getting a 10 just scares me for reviews in the future.

#29 Posted by clstirens (847 posts) -

@JoeyRavn: I agree with you.

That being said, it just seems to unintentionally contribute to fan ramblings and confusion (and no, I was not and have never been confused by the way IGN handles their scoring system. I'm just stating how review scores are taken out of hand).

#30 Posted by Vexxan (4612 posts) -

I don't see the need for anyone to review Minecraft. 

#31 Posted by TaliciaDragonsong (8698 posts) -
@mosespippy said:

Why is it that every time IGN posts a review for a blockbuster game someone makes a thread about it? Who gives a shit what IGN things? If we wanted to know what IGN thinks we would be on IGN and not Giantbomb.

Amen.
#32 Posted by TomA (2531 posts) -

Hey, at least there's no difficulty setting for the reviewer to lie about...

#33 Posted by Masha2932 (1240 posts) -
@mosespippy said:

Why is it that every time IGN posts a review for a blockbuster game someone makes a thread about it? Who gives a shit what IGN things? If we wanted to know what IGN thinks we would be on IGN and not Giantbomb.

This.  
 
Also OP  if you want to discuss reviews at least start a review thread instead of a single site's review. Just to help you out Eurogamer also reviewed the game http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-18-minecraft-review
#34 Posted by TheNose14 (14 posts) -

Regardless of what the end score actually was, I think the actual review (ahem, the important part) was handled about as well as it could of for a game that has been "out" for years.

#35 Posted by Subjugation (4714 posts) -

@TomA said:

Hey, at least there's no difficulty setting for the reviewer to lie about...

Topical.

I tend to agree with those saying that Minecraft is at a point where a review just isn't worth it. It has been around for a long time, people know what it is, and the vast majority of people who were going to buy it already have by this point. If you haven't figured out yet if this is for you, I don't think any number of reviews will change that fact.

#36 Posted by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

@LordXavierBritish said:

This seems unneccesary.

For reals. If Minecraft didn't receive a score of "Yo, it's Minecraft" in every category, it was reviewed wrong.

#37 Posted by clstirens (847 posts) -

@Ravenlight said:

@LordXavierBritish said:

This seems unneccesary.

For reals. If Minecraft didn't receive a score of "Yo, it's Minecraft" in every category, it was reviewed wrong.

Someone with proper photoshop skills should edit the IGN score box to reflect this.

#38 Posted by OneManX (1676 posts) -

@Ravenlight said:

@LordXavierBritish said:

This seems unneccesary.

For reals. If Minecraft didn't receive a score of "Yo, it's Minecraft" in every category, it was reviewed wrong.

Pretty much this.

#39 Posted by mosespippy (3973 posts) -
#40 Posted by TheSouthernDandy (3759 posts) -

How does one even do this? Like what do you say about graphics? They're terrible by today's standards but that's sorta the point. So are they great then? Writing a review for it is fine I guess but it seems like maybe an opinion piece or just a general feeling for the game seems like the best idea.

#41 Posted by BabyChooChoo (4242 posts) -

@mosespippy said:

@Banshee: I'm basically fed up of threads like these (all from the past 2 months). 9.0 from IGN, IGN review up, I think IGN liked the game., IGN review is up - it's a little strange, First Review is in: 9.5 from IGN, IGN's review of GOW 3 will be up tomorrow -- score predictions?

Why do all these people think we want to know what IGN thinks?

Because video games.

In all seriousness though, I both agree and disagree. I agree that these IGN threads are getting out of hand and, at times, they seem a little obsessive. (And it's turning us into NeoGaf and I don't like that future at all.) On the other hand, IGN is, in my opinion, not exactly what I would call a quality site so watching some people poke fun of them can sometimes be entertaining if nothing else.

#42 Posted by AngelN7 (2970 posts) -

The idea of reviewing minecraft seems kinda pointless considering the mod-tool nature of it.

#43 Posted by Brackynews (4035 posts) -

Yep, I kept pondering a revisit of my review from a year ago, and... nuhh, it's still Minecraft. It's a little more like Terraria now than it was then, meaning if you like one you should try the other. If you don't like either, you never will. Boss dragons and enchantment tables won't change that.

#44 Posted by Dany (7887 posts) -
#45 Posted by PandaBear (1295 posts) -

@Subjugation said:

@TomA said:

Hey, at least there's no difficulty setting for the reviewer to lie about...

Topical.

I tend to agree with those saying that Minecraft is at a point where a review just isn't worth it. It has been around for a long time, people know what it is, and the vast majority of people who were going to buy it already have by this point. If you haven't figured out yet if this is for you, I don't think any number of reviews will change that fact.

Can someone explain this to me? Did a quick Google search... but to no avail.

#46 Posted by Subjugation (4714 posts) -

@PandaBear: The guy reviewing The Gunstringer for IGN lied about the difficulty he reviewed it on.

#47 Posted by Gnubberen (754 posts) -

A review for minecraft does seem quite pointless. Though I would love to see an actual Quick look of the game, here on the site.

#48 Posted by Cube (4366 posts) -

@Marz said:

hmm, i never understood why IGN give individual scores to certain aspects of the game if it doesn't mean anything to the final score. When you tally up the individual scores and average it out, it only comes out as an 8.1 score.

I don't bother with sites like IGN because of stuff like this.

At the very most I glance at a Giant Bomb review (if they've reviewed it), and rely on word of mouth. Serves me pretty well.

#49 Posted by ZenaxPure (2569 posts) -
@Cube said:

@Marz said:

hmm, i never understood why IGN give individual scores to certain aspects of the game if it doesn't mean anything to the final score. When you tally up the individual scores and average it out, it only comes out as an 8.1 score.

I don't bother with sites like IGN because of stuff like this.

At the very most I glance at a Giant Bomb review (if they've reviewed it), and rely on word of mouth. Serves me pretty well.

Most of the IGN editors do not even like the individual scoring stuff, they've said as much on various podcasts. I think the problem with IGN getting rid of it is just how big the company and all the politics that must go on in regards to this stuff. Not really as simple a setup as the GB crew has going on. 
#50 Posted by Cube (4366 posts) -

@Zenaxzd said:

@Cube said:

@Marz said:

hmm, i never understood why IGN give individual scores to certain aspects of the game if it doesn't mean anything to the final score. When you tally up the individual scores and average it out, it only comes out as an 8.1 score.

I don't bother with sites like IGN because of stuff like this.

At the very most I glance at a Giant Bomb review (if they've reviewed it), and rely on word of mouth. Serves me pretty well.

Most of the IGN editors do not even like the individual scoring stuff, they've said as much on various podcasts. I think the problem with IGN getting rid of it is just how big the company and all the politics that must go on in regards to this stuff. Not really as simple a setup as the GB crew has going on.

Which is completely understandable. It just means they have one less reader. A staff reviewer can't just say, "I'm not going to review it like they do". If you can't change the publication, you just move on to the next one, I guess.

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.