IGN making recent troll reviews to gain more traffic? I think so.

  • 187 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Edited by Klei (1768 posts) -

Silent Hill got blasted to shreds and before than, so did I Am Alive. Look, let us be honest, these games aren't top tier, but they're far from being an horrible piece of crap like IGN calls them.

What is a game inferior to 5, for you? To me, and most people, it means that it's simply broken and unplayable. A game that is downright busted, with less than sub-par graphics, bad control response and horrible level design, if not downright unfinished. You could say, '' No! These games deserve a 1 out of ten! ''. But actually, no.

Reviews needs to be impartial, with only a hint of opinions. And if the opinions are shown within the reviews, they must not reflect on the final score. Say, you think ME3 is an horrible game because, well, it's just not your cup of tea. Would you rate it 6 out of 10? Or a proper score, because you still see that even though it's not for you, it might be great for others? I think reviews should go with the later.

NG3 is yet another case on that matter. I think IGN are boldly trying to do something with their reviews, as if someone told them '' look, we need more traffic. If you just give an 8, people won't read the review, they'll just far forward to the conclusion to validate their purchase and that's it''. But if you give it a direct 9.5 or 10, people will read through it. Same goes with the lesser titles. Instead of handing over a 6 or 7, pulling a 3.0 WILL bring more readers, thus making the site more profitable. People will want to read it. People will want to talk about it.

Just look at NG3"s graphic evaluation. Does it really deserve 4.0? Then, if NG3 is a 4.0, Gears 3 must be a 6 at best. He gives out a 2.5 for the gameplay. Is the game unplayable? Does it glitches in every wall? Is the framerate horrible? No, it isn't. It's actually Ninja Gaiden once more, with a different take. See where I'm going? This guy is evidently lowering the number just for the sake of being more dramatic. There's nothing impartial about this, it's just him, raging at the game and destroying everything he can over it.

That guy was enraged at NG3 and went all emotional over it, before slapping it a 3. He just can't back up his opinion with facts, because the facts are against everything he said.

I'm not inventing this out of the blue, just check IGN's last reviews, you'll see for yourself. They're really trying to go '' Destructoid '' with their super harsh or super glorified reviews, regardless of the actual product.

Why am I saying that reviews should not be a direct opinion? Because opinions don't really matter. Facts, on the other hand, do. I, myself, write reviews for a french website, and I recently reviews Uncharted : Golden Abyss. To be honest, I thought it was a really bad game. How did I score it? With a 8 out of 10. Simply because the game had numerous qualities that, despite my initial dislike for the game, could not ignore. The game is beautiful, it plays well, the shooting is more than functional and has a really lengthy adventure. What if I slapped it a 4 out of 10, as my inner self would prefer to do? I'd be emotional over it, which would be wrong.

Do judges get emotional when they evaluate a case? Maybe so, but never enough to modify the impartial facts.

Bottom line? IGN probably tries to be dramatic to make more profit in the end. Don't take that 3.0 too seriously. It just, in reality, means a 7.5.

EDIT: I majorly screwed up. When I compared NG3 to Gears3, I meant to compare the graphical prowess of the games... not the games themselves. Sorry for the major shitstorm it caused.

#2 Posted by Milkman (16233 posts) -

There are way too many numbers in this post for me to give a shit. Reviews are not a math equation.

#3 Posted by FancySoapsMan (5750 posts) -

I doubt it.

#4 Posted by MrRedwine (428 posts) -

Reviews are not impartial, they are the opinion of the reviewer.

#5 Posted by DrDarkStryfe (998 posts) -

This cracks me up. Gamers scream for a site to use the entire ten point scale, then screams when a site actually does.

#6 Edited by big_jon (5660 posts) -

Arbitrary numbers woo!

It is really fucking stupid how the word "troll" is so over used now, just because someone's opinion is not the same as yours does not make them a troll! Grow the fuck up people, Giantbomb is above this shit.

#7 Posted by Chris86 (65 posts) -

Game sites just can't win. If they assign high scores they get accused of being paid off, and if they assign low scores they get accused of trying to troll for views.

#8 Posted by BrockNRolla (1702 posts) -

Or maybe, just maybe, someone at IGN really disliked the game. You know, like they had a strong opinion or something crazy like that.

But no, you're probably right. It's probably a conspiracy for clicks.

#9 Posted by MariachiMacabre (6939 posts) -

What the fuck does Gears 3 have to do with NG3? They have nothing in common. First off, NG3 looks shitty compared to NG and even the disappointing NG2 and Gears 3 was a huge step up in quality from GoW2.

#10 Posted by Klei (1768 posts) -

@Milkman said:

There are way too many numbers in this post for me to give a shit. Reviews are not a math equation.

I disagree with you.

@MrRedwine said:

Reviews are not impartial, they are the opinion of the reviewer.

I also disagree. According to you, getting all emotional over a game and being angry to the point of being totally unfair to it is right? I think not. A proper reviewer has to go on with the facts. Hinting your opinion is fine, but it never should affect the direct score. That's how most reviews are made anyways.

@DrDarkStryfe said:

This cracks me up. Gamers scream for a site to use the entire ten point scale, then screams when a site actually does.

I don't scream. My post is, actually, quite passive.

#11 Edited by CptBedlam (4441 posts) -

@Klei said:

I think IGN are boldly trying to do something with their reviews, as if someone told them '' look, we need more traffic.

More like "look, the internet thinks we're overrating games, let's throw in some really harsh scores ... but do it only with games from small publishers from whom we don't expect many lucrative exclusive deals anyway."

#12 Posted by VisariLoyalist (2991 posts) -

based on your premise are you not feeding the trolls?

#13 Posted by iAmJohn (6091 posts) -

@Klei said:

What is a game inferior to 5, for you? To me, and most people, it means that it's simply broken and unplayable. A game that is downright busted, with less than sub-par graphics, bad control response and horrible level design, if not downright unfinished. You could say, '' No! These games deserve a 1 out of ten! ''. But actually, no.

Reviews needs to be impartial, with only a hint of opinions. And if the opinions are shown within the reviews, they must not reflect on the final score. Say, you think ME3 is an horrible game because, well, it's just not your cup of tea. Would you rate it 6 out of 10? Or a proper score, because you still see that even though it's not for you, it might be great for others? I think reviews should go with the later.

So in other words you do not understand how either reviews or review scales work. Gotcha.

#14 Posted by HarlequinRiot (1098 posts) -

I'm not going to say a reviewer has never purposefully scored a game to generate traffic, but at the end of the day, most reviewers are just normal people trying to do their job as best they can. Just because they work for a big company doesn't suddenly turn them into cash-hungry click-mongers.

#15 Edited by Klei (1768 posts) -

Being totally aggressive, bitching and loudly mouth-breathing about any games it is the way to go about writing reviews, nowadays? Then why hire editors, then? Why not hire anybody who wants to scream '' I have an opinion!!!!''. Everybody does.

For instance, according to you, a said movie could be a steaming pile of shit. Would you call it off like this, or you'd actually say '' look, I didn't really have fun with it, but you might. '' As for me, I'd rather have the later.

#16 Edited by artofwar420 (6228 posts) -

Reviews are full of opinion, even if the author tries to be "impartial" anything they write is gonna be marked by their life experiences and expectations.

I disagree. What you're describing is not a critique, but a report or a specs sheet which could have a place in video-game-website-land. I think that's kind of boring though.

#17 Posted by iAmJohn (6091 posts) -

@Klei said:

For instance, according to you, a said movie could be a steaming pile of shit. Would you call it off like this, or you'd actually say '' look, I didn't really have fun with it, but you might. '' As for me, I'd rather have the later.

I'd rather a reviewer not pretend to know anything about me or my preferences and say something fucking stupid like "well I think this game sucks but you might like it so I'm just going to give this a good score." That doesn't make any fucking sense whatsoever.

#18 Posted by ShaggE (5996 posts) -

@Klei said:

Reviews needs to be impartial, with only a hint of opinions. And if the opinions are shown within the reviews, they must not reflect on the final score.

So, reviews need to stop being what they've always been? Reviews ARE opinions. Critics are professional opinion sharers.

There's no such thing as an impartial review, because an impartial review would basically consist of "This game is playable. It has controls, gameplay, visuals, sound, and multiple menu options. It has a win state and a fail state. You may or may not enjoy playing this game. 5/10"

#19 Posted by zels (204 posts) -

@Klei: How do you propose one factually assess the graphical quality of a game, its soundtrack or the gameplay?

Oh well, this model has 20 mil polygons, therefore 10/10 graphics. The soundtrack was composed by an orchestra of 200 people using over 50 different instruments - 7/10 soundtrack, gamplay involves pressing 4 buttons - 1/10.

#20 Posted by DeF (4695 posts) -

a numbered scoring system loses all its value once there is no more consistency in how it is used.

#21 Posted by Blannir (242 posts) -

If IGN is slapping outlandish scores on games to generate buzz and site traffic aren't you helping to do their job for them by posting about it here and complaining? IGN has been a terrible site for a long time, I figured most people had long since moved on by now.

#22 Posted by Klei (1768 posts) -

@iAmJohn said:

@Klei said:

What is a game inferior to 5, for you? To me, and most people, it means that it's simply broken and unplayable. A game that is downright busted, with less than sub-par graphics, bad control response and horrible level design, if not downright unfinished. You could say, '' No! These games deserve a 1 out of ten! ''. But actually, no.

Reviews needs to be impartial, with only a hint of opinions. And if the opinions are shown within the reviews, they must not reflect on the final score. Say, you think ME3 is an horrible game because, well, it's just not your cup of tea. Would you rate it 6 out of 10? Or a proper score, because you still see that even though it's not for you, it might be great for others? I think reviews should go with the later.

So in other words you do not understand how either reviews or review scales work. Gotcha.

I do, but you clearly don't. When reviews are based on a numerical score, they're validated towards the product. Not towards your inner pleasure.

#23 Posted by big_jon (5660 posts) -

@ShaggE said:

@Klei said:

Reviews needs to be impartial, with only a hint of opinions. And if the opinions are shown within the reviews, they must not reflect on the final score.

So, reviews need to stop being what they've always been? Reviews ARE opinions. Critics are professional opinion sharers.

There's no such thing as an impartial review, because an impartial review would basically consist of "This game is playable. It has controls, gameplay, visuals, sound, and multiple menu options. It has a win state and a fail state. You may or may not enjoy playing this game. 5/10"

Trololololololololololololololololol

#24 Posted by Dany (7886 posts) -

Stop caring about review scores and start caring about the game.

You are not the protector of these games, you are not the publisher.. The most a person should get out of a review is "I disagree with him about X, Y but I agree with Z"

Also, critiquing a score before touching the game is the dumbest shit people do when a new review is posted.

#25 Posted by Klei (1768 posts) -

@ShaggE said:

@Klei said:

Reviews needs to be impartial, with only a hint of opinions. And if the opinions are shown within the reviews, they must not reflect on the final score.

So, reviews need to stop being what they've always been? Reviews ARE opinions. Critics are professional opinion sharers.

There's no such thing as an impartial review, because an impartial review would basically consist of "This game is playable. It has controls, gameplay, visuals, sound, and multiple menu options. It has a win state and a fail state. You may or may not enjoy playing this game. 5/10"

But look around you, that's how every, or almost every reviews are made. Why give it a numerical score, then? Why evaluate each and every individual segments? I'm not talking about giantbomb, but IGN.

#26 Posted by Milkman (16233 posts) -

@Klei: Everyone has bias. Everyone has taste. Reviewers aren't robots that can turn off their personal preferences on a whim and they shouldn't be. Reviews are always going to be opinion. That's impossible to eliminate. There was a time in games journalism that "objective reviews" were a thing but that time is gone.

#27 Posted by RazielCuts (2718 posts) -

How am I supposed to know if I don't like a game or not if there isn't a review score put in place.

#28 Posted by Deusx (1880 posts) -

Have you even played NG3? I'm sorry but it's their opinion and you should keep your mouth shut if you haven't played the game. To tell you the truth, from the quicklook Jeff and Ryan did, the game looks REALLY bad.

#29 Posted by christ0phe (951 posts) -

@Klei: Actually on a 10 point scale, a 5 would be a completely average game

#30 Posted by Floope (190 posts) -

I see your point, and will not flame you for it. Considering the majority of IGN is trolls, it's not an idea that I would completely toss out the bag, but it could just be the reviewers genuine opinion.

Your first mistake was going to IGN tho.

#31 Posted by Drebin_893 (2872 posts) -

@DrDarkStryfe said:

This cracks me up. Gamers scream for a site to use the entire ten point scale, then screams when a site actually does.

#32 Posted by Elazul (1327 posts) -

I'm sorry, but there is quite a big difference between a game "not being for you" and it just being objectively poorly made. While everyone is most certainly entitled to their own opinions, a professional reviewer giving a game like I Am Alive 7.5 out of 10 in what is supposed to be impartial purchasing advice, is bordering on negligent.

#33 Posted by BrockNRolla (1702 posts) -

@Klei said:

@MrRedwine said:

Reviews are not impartial, they are the opinion of the reviewer.

I also disagree. According to you, getting all emotional over a game and being angry to the point of being totally unfair to it is right? I think not. A proper reviewer has to go on with the facts. Hinting your opinion is fine, but it never should affect the direct score. That's how most reviews are made anyways.

I think you are deceiving yourself. Reviewers give a final score based on the way they feel about a product, not on some sort of objective, mathematical conclusion based on the component parts. All opinions should be based on facts, but "opinion" is the essential element of all criticism. How can you objectively rate a game? A movie? A book? Do you count the number of words in the script? Do you count the number of pixels? Beyond statements like, "I can't control my character because this game is broken," there are very few objective statements that can be made about a game that have any critical worth.

#34 Posted by Klei (1768 posts) -

@CptBedlam said:

@Klei said:

I think IGN are boldly trying to do something with their reviews, as if someone told them '' look, we need more traffic.

More like "look, the internet thinks we're overrating games, let's throw in some really harsh scores ... but do it only with games from small publishers from whom we don't expect many lucrative exclusive deals anyway."

That's how it goes. I didn't want to call out the obvious lack of paid royalties, but you did for me.

#35 Posted by ShaggE (5996 posts) -

@Klei said:

@ShaggE said:

@Klei said:

Reviews needs to be impartial, with only a hint of opinions. And if the opinions are shown within the reviews, they must not reflect on the final score.

So, reviews need to stop being what they've always been? Reviews ARE opinions. Critics are professional opinion sharers.

There's no such thing as an impartial review, because an impartial review would basically consist of "This game is playable. It has controls, gameplay, visuals, sound, and multiple menu options. It has a win state and a fail state. You may or may not enjoy playing this game. 5/10"

But look around you, that's how every, or almost every reviews are made. Why give it a numerical score, then? Why evaluate each and every individual segments? I'm not talking about giantbomb, but IGN.

Numerical scores are ridiculous, as they haven't meant anything since day one. That's a failing of the entire practice, not of IGN. Same with segment evaluation. But if a critic strongly dislikes a game, it is their job to give it a negative review, for the reasons they see fit. The onus is on the reader to decide if they agree with those reasons.

#36 Posted by Wacomole (811 posts) -

So to further expand on your analogy, if I were to go to a restaurant and got food that tasted like crap, I'd have to give it a good review on the off-chance that someone out there might really be into the taste of excrement.

#37 Posted by Klei (1768 posts) -

@BrockNRolla said:

@Klei said:

@MrRedwine said:

Reviews are not impartial, they are the opinion of the reviewer.

I also disagree. According to you, getting all emotional over a game and being angry to the point of being totally unfair to it is right? I think not. A proper reviewer has to go on with the facts. Hinting your opinion is fine, but it never should affect the direct score. That's how most reviews are made anyways.

I think you are deceiving yourself. Reviewers give a final score based on the way they feel about a product, not on some sort of objective, mathematical conclusion based on the component parts. All opinions should be based on facts, but "opinion" is the essential element of all criticism. How can you objectively rate a game? A movie? A book? Do you count the number of words in the script? Do you count the number of pixels? Beyond statements like, "I can't control my character because this game is broken," there are very few objective statements that can be made about a game that have any critical worth.

To a certain extent, you have to give credit where credit is due, don't you agree? That's just basic logic. That's being fair. If you don't give credit, when credit is due, what does that make you?

#38 Posted by iAmJohn (6091 posts) -

@Klei said:

@iAmJohn said:

@Klei said:

What is a game inferior to 5, for you? To me, and most people, it means that it's simply broken and unplayable. A game that is downright busted, with less than sub-par graphics, bad control response and horrible level design, if not downright unfinished. You could say, '' No! These games deserve a 1 out of ten! ''. But actually, no.

Reviews needs to be impartial, with only a hint of opinions. And if the opinions are shown within the reviews, they must not reflect on the final score. Say, you think ME3 is an horrible game because, well, it's just not your cup of tea. Would you rate it 6 out of 10? Or a proper score, because you still see that even though it's not for you, it might be great for others? I think reviews should go with the later.

So in other words you do not understand how either reviews or review scales work. Gotcha.

I do, but you clearly don't. When reviews are based on a numerical score, they're validated towards the product. Not towards your inner pleasure.

You obviously don't understand how reviews or review scales work because you keep trying to argue that there's some kind of objective truth that every single person who has ever played a video game can agree on. Give me an objective definition of good graphics, good sound, good control, good gameplay and so on and so forth and you can claim that objective reviews are a thing. Oh, and also:

@Klei said:

@ShaggE said:

@Klei said:

Reviews needs to be impartial, with only a hint of opinions. And if the opinions are shown within the reviews, they must not reflect on the final score.

So, reviews need to stop being what they've always been? Reviews ARE opinions. Critics are professional opinion sharers.

There's no such thing as an impartial review, because an impartial review would basically consist of "This game is playable. It has controls, gameplay, visuals, sound, and multiple menu options. It has a win state and a fail state. You may or may not enjoy playing this game. 5/10"

But look around you, that's how every, or almost every reviews are made. Why give it a numerical score, then? Why evaluate each and every individual segments? I'm not talking about giantbomb, but IGN.

As much as it pains me to defend IGN, you're fully aware that they have that big disclaimer on the final score that says "SCORE IS NOT AN AVERAGE OF THE OTHER SCORES," right? Why evaluate each and every individual segment, you say? That's a good fucking question.

#39 Edited by AlexW00d (6065 posts) -

Destructoid gives games fair scores, yet is called harsh? Lol.

#40 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -

OP paid money for both games.

#41 Posted by big_jon (5660 posts) -

@christ0phe said:

@Klei: Actually on a 10 point scale, a 5 would be a completely average game

Not really, that is like saying that 50% is an average grade score in school, that does not make sense.

#42 Posted by CptBedlam (4441 posts) -

@Klei said:

@CptBedlam said:

@Klei said:

I think IGN are boldly trying to do something with their reviews, as if someone told them '' look, we need more traffic.

More like "look, the internet thinks we're overrating games, let's throw in some really harsh scores ... but do it only with games from small publishers from whom we don't expect many lucrative exclusive deals anyway."

That's how it goes. I didn't want to call out the obvious lack of paid royalties, but you did for me.

There aren't any suitcases full of money involved or anything like that. But publishers like to give sites early access who treat them well with their reviews. And IGN's business model solely relies on early/exclusive access.

#43 Posted by GooieGreen (452 posts) -

@DrDarkStryfe said:

This cracks me up. Gamers scream for a site to use the entire ten point scale, then screams when a site actually does.

The money-hat conspiracy lives on.

"They disagree with me, therefore they are trolling!"

#44 Posted by BrockNRolla (1702 posts) -

@Dany said:

Stop caring about review scores and start caring about the game.

You are not the protector of these games, you are not the publisher.. The most a person should get out of a review is "I disagree with him about X, Y but I agree with Z"

Also, critiquing a score before touching the game is the dumbest shit people do when a new review is posted.

I do think there is a valid reason and purpose behind review scores. They effect a lot of people in the industry and people should take care to create them carefully. They also help guide people to what they should spend their hard earned money on. Readers should also take care though that they understand scores appropriately. Unfortunately, I think the "reading" element of "readers" seems sorely lacking, which leads to the, "You gave it X score!? You're awful! Clearly you should be fired!"

#45 Posted by James_Giant_Peach (751 posts) -

I can appreciate your intentions but the wording and attitude of your post is just as bad as any 'troll review'.

#46 Posted by Animasta (14464 posts) -

who the fuck cares? when Jeff gave Catherine a 2 star rating I still bought the game anyway, if you still wanna buy it than what do arbitrary scores matter?

#47 Posted by BrockNRolla (1702 posts) -

@Klei said:

@BrockNRolla said:

@Klei said:

@MrRedwine said:

Reviews are not impartial, they are the opinion of the reviewer.

I also disagree. According to you, getting all emotional over a game and being angry to the point of being totally unfair to it is right? I think not. A proper reviewer has to go on with the facts. Hinting your opinion is fine, but it never should affect the direct score. That's how most reviews are made anyways.

I think you are deceiving yourself. Reviewers give a final score based on the way they feel about a product, not on some sort of objective, mathematical conclusion based on the component parts. All opinions should be based on facts, but "opinion" is the essential element of all criticism. How can you objectively rate a game? A movie? A book? Do you count the number of words in the script? Do you count the number of pixels? Beyond statements like, "I can't control my character because this game is broken," there are very few objective statements that can be made about a game that have any critical worth.

To a certain extent, you have to give credit where credit is due, don't you agree? That's just basic logic. That's being fair. If you don't give credit, when credit is due, what does that make you?

I have absolutely no idea what that means. Give credit for what? Creating a game? Making "graphics?" What are you saying people deserve "credit" for?

#48 Posted by Skald (4366 posts) -

A totally impartial game review would be a game chronicle. I don't think you want that.

#49 Posted by iAmJohn (6091 posts) -

@big_jon said:

@christ0phe said:

@Klei: Actually on a 10 point scale, a 5 would be a completely average game

Not really, that is like saying that 50% is an average grade score in school, that does not make sense.

False equivalency.

#50 Posted by devilzrule27 (1235 posts) -

Who really gives a shit. If you don't like a site then don't read their reviews and do something better with your time.

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.