Was this written by the same guy that wrote that DS2 review? Because if that scores a 10 on the terrible writing scale, this get's a solid 8.

I haven't played the game yet but I don't read or care for anything IGN does, ever.

"OHHHHH MAH GAWDDDD IGN doesn't seem to like it as much as my man god Mr. Gerstmann. No one can write as perfectly as him!" 

 Nobody said anything about MK being the new definitive fighter.  But why don't I compare the reviews if I may:

MVC3:  Presentation
 "The game struggles the most here, lacking the extra polish outside of the core gameplay. True alternate costumes, more characters, more variety and depth for modes needed."  7.5

MK: Presentation
 "The story is entertaining but cheesy. You can’t skip or pause the cutscenes -- isn’t it 2011? " 6.0

Are you fucking kidding me?!?! You back this up?

MVC3: Graphics
" In going for a comic book visual style, Capcom has stripped away some detail. Strong, but not the greatest. I do miss the animated look of the past game."  8.5

MK: Graphics
 "Much of the art style is still “stuck in 1992,” as our own Arthur Gies described it. Character models themselves look respectable and the environments are awesome. "   7.5

So Capcom has stripped away some detail but MK is still stuck in 1992.  Really?  You don't have to be playing the game to see that is completely untrue.

MVC3: Sound
" Effective for what it needs to be. Sound effects are great. Voices are actually quite good. Love the “Take You for a Ride” remix. "  8.0

MK: Sound
" Incredible sound design when it comes to special effects. Voice acting is surprisingly good, if not a little over the top. Music is fitting but not as strong as the effects. " 9.0

It's almost like they're saying the same exact thing about both games.  But for once MK gets a point over MVC.  Lets continue.

MVC3: Gameplay
" In some ways Capcom plays it a little safe, but this is still ridiculously addicting stuff. The character roster, though smaller, is diverse and balanced."  9.0

MK: Gameplay
" Great combat system that’s best enjoyed with a friend locally. Online multiplayer works but was sluggish by comparison. Aggravating single-player imbalances. "

8.0

So lets dock a point from MK because he's loosely saying MP is sluggish and has no idea of how the MK bosses have always been fought.  MP isn't even mentioned for MVC3, anywhere.  There's latency issues with it too.  And Capcom plays it safe but it's still addicting, while MK caters to fighters of all degrees with this release.  Hmmm.

MVC3: Lasting Appeal
" Hurt by a lack of diversity in its modes, the core fighting experience here will still keep you coming back over and over again. "   7.5

MK: Lasting Appeal
" Ridiculous amount of content to unlock, including costumes, Fatalities, special codes, art, and more. Mortal Kombat's longevity will depend on how the community reacts to it. "   8.5

All is good but why don't we speak about the many modes that MK has?  What about the core MK experience?  True he gave MK a point over MVC but if anybody has any brains and knows about the series even with the recent releases of MK it clearly deserves a 9 or 9.5 on this one. 

I'm willing to give all aspects a pass but the score on the presentation, which to me is why I point out that IGN has become incompetent.  I'm not here to debate the greatness of MVC3 because I truly believe it to be an excellent game.  However,  I'm not blind and can clearly see the fanboyism that IGN has over Capcoms fighters when you give a game a 6 because you can't skip the cut scenes and complain that the story is cheesy.  Name one fighter who's story mode isn't and if you cant then give them all a 6.  Also putting in alternate costumes, characters, etc in MVC3 presentation but not in MK's is ridiculous.  But like I said, the fanboys are at their best here.

And I can't wait to get the game.  As soon as Best Buy opens I'll be there to get the Tournament Edition for the PS3 if they have it.  And I won't miss out like the other homer fanboys at IGN since I was actually able to see a review by someone who actually knows what they're talking about, not that I wouldn't have bought the game anyway regardless. 

I love both games for what they are.  I'm just here commenting on the incompetency of IGN and how it's gotten worse over the last few years.  I'm glad I let my subscription run out.

Why would you take an IGN review seriously? the only reviews worth a damn these days are from Giantbomb, 1UP and Gametrailers in my opinion.

GT and GB put some real effort into the video reviews and they have a good length to them explaining alot, IGN on the otherhand put nowhere near as much into their reviews.

I thought people read reviews to find out what different people thought about a game, not to validate their purchase.

Exactly, never base your purchase on a review! its just an opinion at the end of the day

But some outlets do it better than others

... why are people comparing it to MvC3?

He sounded like he wanted to score it much lower than that.  Oh well, what can you do?  Opinions vary.  Gamespot gave God Hand, (my GOTY when it came out) an 8.0 score and said it was great fun.  IGN gave the same damn game a 3.0 and said it was trash equatable to Big Rigs.  Different folks, different strokes.  I agreed with the review by Kasavin at GS, and IGNs opinion didn't stop me from enjoying the game, and I still fire it up every now and then to this day.  Still the only game with a spanking move.

I don't really care about what they're saying about the game, but that review was just horribly written. 

I haven't played the full game yet, but with most games you're able to pause by hitting the guide button even if "start" won't do it.

All you have to do is look at our MK v SF poll and you'll see that there are people out there who think MK is just cheese.  Cheesy story, cheesy characters, cheesy fatalities.  Their Japanese fighting game of choice is a fine wine, where MK is Kool-Aid.

IGN gave MK's story a 6.0.  I have to wonder what he was expecting, Heavy Rain?  I feel bad for the people interested in MK but decide to turn it down after reading his review.

Only reason I go to IGN now is for news articles.  Now that GB has a news editor, once he gets his feet under him, I could see my visits there go from once every two weeks, to possibly once every month or so.  They just aren't what they used to be, but I still go for nostalgia's sake.

Still waiting on the game to show up at my door, so I haven't played it yet, but the review seemed..inadequate. It still got a high score, so that's good, I guess, but Clements didn't really go into detail about all the different modes of play. No mention of King of the Hill or the Krypt or Challenge Tower...these are big parts of the game, you know?
And the presentation looks amazing from what I've seen. The seamless transition from cutscenes to fights in story mode, especially. From what I read from Jeff's review is that you can't skip or pause cutscenes because it's loading the next fight in the background. I would take seamless transitions over having to watch a load screen.

I wish he had elaborated more on the "stuck in 1992" comment. I don't really understand that one. Is it because it re-uses visual concepts from MK2? Is that really a bad thing? It's not like they ripped the 2D background picture of the Dead Pool and put it as a stage (though that would be a hilarious bonus). They totally redid all that stuff as a throwback to the fans. I guess Clements isn't an MK-fan.

At least Clements made good note of the sound design.

I didn't think it was a too horrible of a review, most people know what to expect of a Mortal Kombat game but he still had to write something. Yeah giving a fighting game story a 6 is weird, but if you compare it to Tekken's usual crazy stories for each character maybe it's a bit lackluster, though isn't "cheesy" the point? All in all, eh its a fighting game review.

Have you guys ever heard Ryan Clements talk, dude should not be reviewing an MK game. 

Poorly written.  Bare-bones.  Not very descriptive.  Also, lol @ giving a 6 for presentation for not allowing to pause in cutscenes.  Come on now.

I doubt anyone would take that review seriously, but shame to anyone who turns down MK because of it. lol

He gave the presentation a 6 because the story wasn't good enough... it's a fucking fighting game, I mean come on. They also criticize the visual style for reminding them of "1992", even though this is a throwback game.

" Have you guys ever heard Ryan Clements talk, dude should not be reviewing an MK game.  "

Aren't IGN the ones who ran a 3.0 review of God Hand by a dude who later confessed to only have played the first level?

All of the reviews I've been reading have been great...except for IGN's. That's the case with a lot of games I look up. I tend to avoid IGN for the most part because their review style doesn't match my taste for gaming usually. I'd just ignore it and look elsewhere. 5 out of 5 stars here!

There's been a lot of 90+ reviews. 

6.0 for presentation because he couldn't pause the cutscenes? WHAT?

pro tip, ignore IGN.

 i don't really have a problem with the review and I think he scored it fair. I would have given it a bit of a higher score. But i don;t understand why everyone feels like they have to pull a review apart. If the game got a great rating i don't see how the things he point off as bad points rubb you the wrong way so badly. It was his problem with the game it may not be yours. I think i would be more worried of jeff's review because everyone knows he loves MK and everyone knew it was going to get 5 stars. I would have bet my life on MK getting 5 stars from jeff without even blinking.

" pro tip, ignore IGN. "

"Why would you take an IGN review seriously? the only reviews worth a damn these days are from Giantbomb, 1UP and Gametrailers in my opinion.GT and GB put some real effort into the video reviews and they have a good length to them explaining alot, IGN on the otherhand put nowhere near as much into their reviews. "

The last Clements' article I read was his analysis of Team Ico's alleged sexism. I found that he generalized an entire country based on some offhand remark Ueda made.  

Also i think people are forgetting the same person does not review every game so you just can't wildly compare every review like ign is one person. "

If you think IGN's review was bad, just wait till you see these....

5.7
6.1

sad world lol

Wow I didn't realize GB had so many haters. Why are people reading a review from a site that they hate, for a game they know that they are going to buy?

" @phantomzxro said:

Also i think people are forgetting the same person does not review every game so you just can't wildly compare every review like ign is one person. "

True, but therer is a bar set by the higher-ups that seems to be falling all the time. I used to go to IGN quite a bit but their "personalities" seem more concerned with impressing each other than doing good work. "

I would still have to disagree the only problem i could put on ign is a lot of known and loved  editors have moved on and that is a problem all gaming sites face. When new people come on broad it their opinion, i don't like everyone in ign and i know which reviewer i need to stay away from and which to take with a cup of suger. As much as people want to defend giantbomb their site is no different in that respect. their was no wuestion in my mind that MK was going to get 5 stars. Is that a good thing or bad thing i don't know. But jeff was almost locked into giving this game that score because he gave MK vs DC the same score in which i feel is a worse game.

Now i could sit here and compare those reviews and make a strong agrument of why jeff is biased and how his review is more unfair then the ign review but i'm not. Because it does you no good to compare reviews like that. Some people miss the point of a review sometimes it there to tell you if its a good game and you buy it and enjoy yourself.  But i digess,  i'm not here to tell anyyone ign is great but it gets old when people try to paint them as the bane of video game reviews.

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but you have to keep in mind that IGN is a mainstream gaming site. They aren't reviewing this game for hardcore fighting game fans, they are reviewing it for the average gamer.

" If you think IGN's review was bad, just wait till you see these....

5.7
6.1sad world lol "

I gave up on IGN a while back.

" If you think IGN's review was bad, just wait till you see these....

5.7
6.1sad world lol "

i feel like he didnt even play the single player. he just wrote it off and said it sucked compared to other fighting games...

and the fact that he uses the word cheesey over and over its very amatuerish. i mean come on, cheesey? bro, its MORTAL KOMBAT. Didnt know you were expecting a fucking masterpiece. and whats the point of play a story mode if youre just going to skip the whole story (aka cutscenes)

" @xhavoc86 said:

" If you think IGN's review was bad, just wait till you see these....

5.7
6.1sad world lol "

Do you not know what an opinion is? I like how straightaway everybody agrees with Jeff (the guy who unabashedly loves the franchise) but questions every single other review as if they are making shit up. "

" I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but you have to keep in mind that IGN is a mainstream gaming site. They aren't reviewing this game for hardcore fighting game fans, they are reviewing it for the average gamer. "

I felt like the review was really short. Like it wasn't really giving me that good of an impression of what the game really has to offer. Mostly just senseless nitpicking.

Giantbomb, Game Informer, and Edge are the only reviews I really pay attention to. 

" Aren't IGN the ones who ran a 3.0 review of God Hand by a dude who later confessed to only have played the first level? "

I can only imagine it's because Warner didn't pay IGN enough for a good review.

So they give it a lower score on one part cause the story is cheesy?  Clearly this person was not the sort of person that should have been picked to review this game as they apparently didn't understand 50% of the point of mortal kombat.